£\ht<xvy  of trhe  C  heolo0ical  ^mimvy 

PRINCETON    •   NEW  JERSEY 
PRESENTED  BY 

The  John  M*  Krebs 
donation 

B52385 

V.   I       

2opyn 


SYNONYMS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


SYNONYMS 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT; 


THE    SUBSTAXCE    OF    A    COURSE    OF 

LECTURES   ADDRESSED    TO    THE    THEOLOGICAL    STUDENTS, 

king's    college,  LONDON. 


RICHARD   CHENEVIX   TRENCH,  B.  D  , 

PROFESSOR  OF  DIYINITY,  KIXg's  COLLEGE,  LO>T)OX  ; 

AUTHOR    OF    "the    STUDY    OF   WORDS,"    "  THE    LESSONS    IN 

PROVERBS,"   ETC.,   EIC. 


REDFIELD, 

110  AND  112  NASSAU  STREET,  NEW  YOEK. 
185  4. 


PREFACE. 


This  little  volume  lias  grown  out  of  a  short 
course  of  lectures  on  the  synonyms  of  the  Xew 
Testament,  which,  in  the  fulfilment  of  my  duties  as 
Professor  of  Divinity  at  King's  College,  I  have 
more  than  once  addressed  to  the  theological  students 
there.  It  seemed  to  me  that  lectures  on  such  a 
subject  might  help,  in  however  partial  a  measure, 
to  supply  a  want,  of  which  many  of  the  students 
themselves  are  probably  conscious,  of  which  those 
who  have  to  do  with  their  training  cannot  help 
being  aware.  The  long,  patient  and  exact  studies 
in  philology  of  our  great  schools  and  universities, 
which  form  so  invaluable  a  portion  of  their  mental, 
and,  I  will  add,  of  their  moral  discipline  also,  can 
find  no  place  during  the  two  years  or  two  years  and 
a  half  of  the  theological  course  at  King's  College. 
The  time  itself  is  too  short  to  allow  this,  and  it  is 


6  PEEFACE. 

in  great  part  claimed  by  other  and  more  pressing 
studies.  Some,  indeed,  ^Ye  rejoice  to  find,  come  to 
ns  possessing  this  knowledge  in  a  very  respectable 
degree  already ;  while  of  others  much  more  than 
this  can  be  said.  Yet  where  it  does  not  already 
exist,  it  is  qnite  impossible  that  it  can  be  more  than 
in  part  supplied.  At  the  same  time  we  feel  the  loss 
and  the  deficiency ;  we  are  sometimes  conscious  of 
it  even  in  those  who  go  forth  from  ns  with  general 
theological  acquirements,  which  would  bear  a  fa- 
vourable comparison  with  the  acquirements  of  those 
trained  in  older  institutions.  It  is  a  matter  of  re- 
gret, when  in  papers  admirable  in  all  other  respects, 
errors  of  inexact  scholarship  are  to  be  found,  which 
seem  quite  out  of  keeping  with  the  amount  of  in- 
telligence, and  the  standard  of  knowledge,  whicli 
every  where  else  they  display. 

Feeling  the  immense  value  of  these  studies,  and 
how  unwise  it  would  be,  because  we  cannot  liave 
all  which  we  would  desire,  to  forego  what  is  possi- 
ble and  within  our  reach,  I  have  two  or  tliree  times 
dedicated  a  brief  course  of  lectures  to  the  compara- 
tive value  of  words  in  the  Kew  Testament — and 
these,  with  some  subsequent  additions  and  some 
defalcations,  have  supplied  the  materials  of  the 
present  volume.  I  have  never  doubted  that,  set- 
ting aside  those  higher  and  more  solemn  lessons, 
which  in  a  great  measure  are  out  of  our  reach  to 


PKEFACE.  7 

impart,  being  to  be  tauglit  rather  by  God  than  men, 
there  are  few  things  which  we  should  have  more  at 
heart  than  to  awaken  in  om'  scholars  an  enthusiasm 
for  the  grammar  and  the  lexicon.  We  shall  have 
done  much,  very  much  for  those  who  come  to  us 
for  theological  training  and  generally  for  mental 
guidance,  if  we  can  persuade  them  to  have  these 
continually  in  their  hands ;  if  we  can  make  them 
believe  that  with  these,  and  out  of  these,  they  may 
be  learning  more,  obtaining  more  real  and  lasting 
acquisitions,  such  as  will  stay  by  them,  such  as  will 
form  a  part  of  the  texture  of  their  own  minds  for 
ever,  that  they  shall  from  these  be  more  effectually 
accomplishing  themselves  for  their  future  work, 
than  from  many  a  volume  of  divinity,  studied  be- 
fore its  time,  even  if  it  were  worth  studying  at  all, 
crudely  digested,  and  therefore  turning  to  no  true 
nourishment  of  the  inner  man. 

But  having  now  ventured  to  challenge  for  these 
lectures  a  somewhat  wider  audience  than  at  first 
they  had,  it  may  be  permitted  to  me  to  add  here  a 
very  few  observations  on  the  value  of  the  study  of 
synonyms,  not  any  longer  considered  in  reference 
to  our  peculiar  needs,  but  generally ;  and  on  that 
of  the  synonyms  of  the  Xew  Testament  in  particu- 
lar ;  as  also  on  the  helps  to  this  study  which  are  at 
present  in  existence. 

The   value   of   tliis   study    as   a   discipline   for 


8  PHEFACE. 

training  the  mind  into  close  and  accurate  habits  of 
thought,  the  amount  of  instruction  which  may  be 
drawn  from  it,  the  increase  of  intellectual  wealth 
wliich  it  may  yield,  all  this  has  been  implicitly 
recognized  by  well-nigh  all  great  writers  —  for  well- 
nigh  all  from  time  to  time  have  paused,  themselves 
to  play  the  dividers  and  discerners  of  words  —  ex- 
plicitly by  not  a  few  who  have  proclaimed  the 
value  which  this  study  had  in  their  eyes.  And  in- 
structive as  in  any  language  it  must  be,  it  must  be 
eminently  so  in  the  Greek  —  a  language  spoken  by 
a  people  of  the  finest  and  subtlest  intellect ;  who 
saw  distinctions  where  others  saw  none ;  who  di- 
vided out  to  difierent  words  what  others  often  Avere 
content  to  huddle  under  a  common  term ;  who  were 
themselves  singularly  alive  to  its  value,  diligently 
cultivating  the  art  of  synonymous  distinction,*  and 
sometimes  even  to  an  extravagant  excess ;  *  who 
have  bequeathed  a  multitude  of  fine  and  delicate 
observations  on  the  right  distiuguishing  of  their 
own  words  to  the  after  world. 

And  while  thus,  with  reference  to  all  Greek, 
the  investigation  of  the  likenesses  and  differences 
of  words  appears  especially  invited  by  the  charac- 
teristic excellences  of  the  language,  in  respect  to 

*  The  ov6ixaTa  tiaipeiv,  Plato,  Laches,  197  d. 
"^  Id.  Protag.  oil  a  b  c. 


PEEFACE.  9 

the  Greek  of  the  ISTew  Testament,  plainly  there  are 
reasons  additional  inviting  ns  to  this  study.  If  by 
it  we  become  aware  of  delicate  variations  in  an 
autJior's  meaning,  which  otherwise  w^e  might  have 
missed,  where  is  it  so  desirable  that  we  should  not 
miss  anything,  that  we  should  lose  no  finer  inten- 
tion of  the  writer,  than  in  those  words  which  are 
the  vehicles  of  the  very  mind  of  God  ?  If  it  in- 
creases the  intellectual  riches  of  the  student,  can 
this  anywhere  be  of  so  great  importance  as  there, 
where  the  intellectual  may,  if  rightly  used,  j^rove 
spiritual  riches  as  well  ?  If  it  encourage  thoughtful 
meditation  on  the  exact  forces  of  words,  both  as 
they  are  in  themselves,  and  in  their  relation  to  other 
words,  or  in  any  way  unveil  to  us  their  marvel  and 
their  mystery,  this  can  nowhere  else  have  a  worth 
in  the  least  approaching  that  which  it  acquires 
when  the  words  with  which  we  have  to  do  are,  to 
those  who  receive  them  aright,  words  of  eternal 
life ;  while  out  of  the  dead  carcases  of  the  same,  if 
men  suffer  the  spirit  of  life  to  depart  from  tliem,  all 
manner  of  corruptions  and  heresies  may  be,  as  they 
have  been,  bred. 

The  words  of  the  Kew  Testament  are  eminently 
the  aroL')(eia  of  Christian  theology,  and  he  who  will 
lot  begin  with  a  patient  study  of  these,  shall  never 
make  any  considerable,  least  of  all  any  secure,  ad- 
vances in  this :  for  here,  as  everywhere  else,  disap 
1* 


10  PREFACE. 

poiiitmeiit  awaits  him  who  thinks  to  possess  the 
whole  without  first  possessing  the  parts,  of  which 
that  whole  is  composed.  l^o\v  it  is  the  very  nature 
and  necessity  of  the  investigation  of  synonyms  to 
compel  such  patient  investigation  of  the  forces  of 
words,  such  accurate  weighing  of  their  precise 
value,  absolute  and  relative,  and  in  this  its  merits 
as  a  mental  discipline,  consist. 

Yet  neither  in  respect  of  Greek  synonyms  in 
general,  nor  specially  in  respect  of  those  of  the 
New  Testament,  can  it  be  afiirmed  that  we  are  even 
tolerably  furnished  with  books.  Whatever  there 
may  be  to  provoke  occasional  dissent  in  Doderlein's 
Lateinische  Synonyme  und  Etymologieen^  yet  there 
is  no  book  on  Greek  synonyms  which  for  compass 
and  completeness  can  bear  comparison  with  it ;  and 
almost  all  the  more  important  modern  languages 
of  Europe  have  better  books  devoted  to  their  syno- 
nyms than  any  which  has  been  devoted  to  the 
Greek.  The  works  of  the  early  grammarians,  as  of 
Ammonius  and  others,  supply  a  certain  amount  of 
important  material,  but  cannot  be  said  even  remote- 
ly to  meet  the  needs  of  the  student  at  the  present 
day.  Yomel's  Synonymisches  Worterluch^  Frank- 
furt, 1822,  an  admirable  little  volume  as  far  as  it 
goes,  but  at  the  same  time  a  school-book  and  no 
more,  and.  Pillon's  Synonymes  Grecs^  of  which  a 
translation   into  English  was  edited  by  the   late 


rin':FACK.  11 

T.  K.  Arnold,  London,  1850,  are  the  only  modern 
attempts  to  supply  the  deficiency ;  at  least  I  am 
not  aware  of  any  other.  But  neither  of  these  wri- 
ters has  allowed  himself  space  to  enter  on  his  sub- 
ject w^th  any  fulness  and  completeness  ;  while  the 
references  to  the  synonyms  of  the  I^ew  Testament 
are  exceedingly  rare  in  Ycimel ;  and  though  some- 
what more  frequent  in  Pillon's  work,  are  capricious 
and  accidental  there,  and  in  general  of  a  meagre 
and  unsatisfactory  description. 

The  only  book  dedicated  expressly  and  exclu- 
sively to  these  is  one  written  in  Latin  by  J.  A.  H. 
Tittman,  De  Synonymis  in  Novo  Testamento^  Leip- 
sic,  1829,  1832.  It  would  ill  become  me,  and  I 
have  certainly  no  intention  to  speak  slightingly  of 
the  work  of  a  most  estimable  man,  and  of  a  good 
scholar — above  all,  when  that  work  is  one  from 
which  I  have  occasionally  derived  assistance,  such 
as  I  most  willingly  acknowledge.  Yet  the  fact 
that  we  are  oflering  a  book  on  the  same  subject  as 
a  preceding  author ;  and  may  thus  lie  under,  or  seem 
to  others  to  lie  under,  the  temptation  of  unduly 
claiming  for  the  ground  which  we  would  occupy, 
that  it  is  not  occupied  already ;  this  must  not  wholly 
shut  our  mouths  in  respect  of  what  appear  to  us 
deficiencies  or  shortcomings  on  his  ]3art.  And  this 
work  of  Tittmann's  seems  to  me  still  to  leave  room 
for  another  on  the  subject  of  the  synonyms  of  the 


12  PREFACE. 

New  Testament.  It  sometimes  travels  very  slowly 
over  its  ground  ;  the  synonyms  which  he  selects  for 
discrimination  cannot  be  esteemed  always  the  most 
interesting,  nor,  which  is  one  of  the  most  im]3ortant 
things  of  all,  are  they  always  felicitously  grouped 
for  investigation  ;  he  often  fails  to  bring  out  in  sharp 
and  clear  antithesis  the  differences  between  them  ; 
while  now  and  then  the  investigations  of  later 
scholars  have  quite  broken  down  the  distinctions 
which  he  has  sought. to  establish.  Indeed  the  fact 
that  this  book  of  Tittmann's,  despite  the  interest 
of  its  subject,  and  its  standing  alone  upon  it,  not 
to  speak  of  its  republication  in  England  and  in 
English,'  has  never  obtained  any  considerable  cir- 
culation among  students  of  theology  here,  is  itself 
an  evidence  that  it  has  not  been  felt  to  meet  our 
wants  on  the  matter. 

The  work  which  is  now  offered,  is,  I  am  perfect- 
ly aware,  but  a  slight  contribution  to  the  subject — 
small  in  respect  of  the  number  of  synonyms  con- 
sidered,'^ which  might  easily  have  been  doubled  or 

*  Biblical  Cabinet,  vols.  iii.  xxxvii.  Edinburgh,  1833,  1837.  It 
must  at  the  same  time  be  owned  that  Tittmann  has  hardly  had  a 
fair  chance.  Nothing  can  well  be  imagined  more  incorrect  and 
more  slovenly  than  this  translation.  It  is  often  unintelligible, 
where  the  original  is  perfectly  clear. 

^  I  have  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  dispose  these  synou3-m3 
in  alplial)otical  order.    The  fact  that  onl}'^  one  in  each  pair  or  group, 


PEEFACE.  13 

trebled ;  many  of  the  most  interesting  having  re- 
mained untouched  by  me ;  and  also,  as  I  am  pain- 
fully aware,  with  manifold  deficiencies,  most  proba- 
bly with  some  mistakes,  even  in  the  treatment  of 
these.  The  conclusions  at  which  I  have  arrived 
may  rest  sometimes  on  too  narrow  an  induction :  it 
is  possible  that  a  larger  knowledge  would  have  com- 
pelled me  to  modify  or  forego  them  altogether.  I 
can  only  say  that  I  have  not  consciously  passed 
over  any  passages  which  would  have  made  against 
my  distinction  ;  and  that  on  this  and  any  other  sub- 
ject in  the  volume  I  shall  most  gladly  receive  in- 
struction and  correction ;  while  yet,  in  conclusion, 
I  will  not  fear  to  add  that,  with  all  this,  the  book  is 
the  result  of  enough  of  honest  labour,  of  notices 
not  to  be  found  ready  to  hand  in  Wetstein,  or  Gro- 
tius,  or  Suicer,  in  German  commentaries,  or  in  lexi- 
cons (though  I  have  availed  myself  of  all  these), 
but  gathered  one  by  one  during  many  years,  to 
make  me  feel  confident  that  any  who  shall  hereafter 
give  a  better  and  completer  book  on  the  subject, 
will  yet  acknowledge  a  certain  amount  of  assistance 
derived  from  these  preparatory  labours. 

Let  me  only  add  how  deeply  thankful  I  shall 

can  be  arranged  according  to  such  law,  renders  the  disposition 
nearly,  if  not  altogether,  useless.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have 
sought,  by  sufficient  indexes,  to  assist  the  reader's  references  to  the 
book. 


14r  PREFACE. 

be  to  Him  who  can  alone  prosper  the  work  of  our 
hands,  if  my  book,  notwithstanding  its  deficiencies 
and  imperfections,  shall  be  of  any  service  to  any  in 
leading  them  into  a  closer  and  more  accurate  inves- 
tigation of  Plis  "Word,  and  of  the  riches  of  wisdom 
and  knowledge  which  are  therein  contained. 

Itchenstoke,  May,  1854:. 


CONTENTS, 


§  i. — ^EiiK\7]ala,  a-vvaycayr},  Travqyvpis 
ii. — 0e/oT7js,  6€6tt}s 
iii. — Upov,  vaos         .... 
iv. — iTriTifj.da),  i\iyx<»  {alria,  eAeyxos) 
V. — a.m67]iJ.a,  avaQ^jxa 
vi. — Trpo(pr]T^vo},  fj.avTivo/xai 
vli. — Tijxwpia,  K6\a(ris 
riii. — aKrjOrjs,  uXtjOlvos   . 
ix. — depdirwv,  SovAos,  Biolkovos,  yTTTjperrjs 
X. — SeiXla,  (po^os,  evXd^eia 
xi. — KaKia,  TTovripla,  KaKor}deia 
xii. — a7a7ra«,  (piXew 
xiii. — OdXaa-aa,  ireKayos 
xiv. — (TKXripos,  aucTT-qpos 
-<'    XV. — ciKwy,  dixoiwcris,  ofxoiw^ia     . 
xvi. — acrwrla,  dtreAyeta 
x\di. — diyydvw,  airrofj-ai,  ^r)\a<pda> 
xviii. — TraXiyyeuea-'ia,  avaKaipwcris 
xix. — al^xvi^Vi  otScoy 
XX. — atScor,  (TctKppoffvvr) 
xxi. — (Tvpw,  IA-kuw 
. —  xxii. — o\6K\r}pos,  reKeios         . 
xxiii. — crrecpavos,  didSrjfia 
xxiv. — Tr\eov£^ia,  (piXapyvpia    . 

XXV. fi6(TKW,   TTOllXaivd) 

xxvi. — C^Xo^,  (pQovos 


PAGB 
17 

24 

28 

31 

35 

40 

46 

48 

53 

58 

60 

65 

72 

74 

77  \ 

83 

89 

92. 

98 
102 
105 
108 
112 
117 
120 
124 


16 


CONTENTS. 


§  xxvii, — (u3V,  $ios  .... 

xxviii. — Kvpioi,  SecTfft^TTjs    . 
xxix, — a.\a(u)u,  viri(n\<bavoSy  v$pi(TTr]s 
XXX. — avTixp^CTos,  i|/euSoxP"'"''<'S 
xxxi. — fjLoXvfw,  maiuM 
xxxii. — TraiSeto,  vovdsaia   . 
xxxiii. — acpeais,  vdpeais 

xxxiv. — nwpoXoyia,  ai(rxpo^o7ia,  euTpaTreXto 
XXXV. — Xarpevci},  KeiTovpyew 
xxxvi. — 7rej/7js,  TTTWxo's 
xxxvii. — dv/xos,  opyv,  ^apopyiafioi  . 
Xxxviii. — eKaiov,  fxvpov  (XP'^^j  o.\ii<pw) 
xxxix. — 'EjSpaTo?,  'louSatos,  ^l(rpar}\iT7]s 
xl. — atVeo),  epwrdw 
xli. — avdiravais,  avecris 
■   xlii. — TaTTeiuocppocTVPT),  Trpadrrjs 
xliii. — TrpaoTT}?,  eTrieiKem 
xliv. — KKfirrris,  \r)aTT]s    . 

Xlv. TrKvvO},   I/ITTTO),   \ovu    "... 

xlvi. — (pws,  (piyyos,  <po}(rrr\p,  Xvxvos,  Xafiirds 

xlvii. — X°-P^^'  eXeo?       ....... 

xlviii. — Ofoffefiris,  evffefirjs,  evXa^rjs,  Bpr^cTKOs,  BiKTiSaifiwv 
xlix. — KXrifjia,  KXdSo<:  ...... 

1. — a.   xP'O'^'^oTTii,  ayaOuavvr] 

)8.     iXvls,    TTlCTTtS 

y.  o-xiVjUo,  a'lpecris 

5.  naKpoQvfjLia,  Trpaorr^s 

6.  XoiSope'o),  ^XaffcpTtfiew 
^.  ^^vx^K6s,  (TapKlKOS 
t],  fxeravoeu),  fierafieXo/JLai 
6.  alwv,  Kofffios 
t.  irpavs,  Tjavxios 

K.     0J/7JTO9,    VeKpOS 

X.   KoXaais,  Tijj.ccpia 
jx.   &<p€ais,  •JTo/jecris     . 


SYNOJ^YMS  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


g  i. — 'EKKXrjaLa,  (Twaycoyi],  7ravrjyvpL<?. 

'EKK\r)aia  is  one  of  those  words  whose  liistory 
it  is  peculiarly  interesting  to  watch,  as  they  obtain 
a  deeper  meaning,  and  receive  a  new  consecration 
in  the  Christian  Church ;  which,  even  while  it  did 
not  invent,  has  yet  assumed  them  into  its  service, 
and  employed  them  in  a  far  loftier  sense  than  any 
to  which  the  world  had  ever  put  them  before. 
The  very  word  by  which  the  Church  is  named  is 
itself  an  examj^le  —  a  more  illustrious  one  could 
scarcely  be  found  —  of  this  gradual  ennobling  of  a 
word.  For  we  have  i/cKXTjala  in  three  distinct 
stages  of  meaning  —  the  heathen,  the  Jewish,  and 
the  Christian.  In  respect  of  the  first,  iKKXrjaia, 
as  all  know,  Vv^as  the  lawful  assembly  in  a  free 
Greek   city  of  all  those  possessed  of  the  riglits  of 


18  SYNONYMS    OF    IHE 

citizenship,  for  the  transaction  of  public  affairs. 
That  they  were  summoned  is  expressed  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  word ;  that  they  w^ere  summoned  out 
of  the  whole  population,  a  select  portion  of  it,  in- 
cluding neither  the  poj^ulace,  nor  yet  strangers,  nor 
those  who  had  forfeited  their  civic  rights,  this  is 
expressed  in  the  first.  Both  the  calling^  and  the 
calling  oict^  are  moments  to  be  remembered,  when 
the  word  is  assumed  into  a  higher  Christian  sense, 
for  in  them  the  chief  part  of  its  peculiar  adaptation 
to  its  auguster  uses  lies.^  It  is  interesting  to  ob- 
serve how,  on  one  occasion  in  the  New  Testament, 
the  word  returns  to  this  its  earlier  significance 
(Acts  xix.  32,  39,  40). 

'E/cK\rjaLa  did  not,  like  some  other  words,  pass 
immediately  and  at  a  single  ste^D  from  the  heathen 
world  to  the  Christian  Church :   but  here,  as  so 

^  Both  these  points  are  well  made  by  Flacius  Illyricus,  iu  his 
Clavis  Scripturce,  s.  v.  Ecclesia:  Quia  Ecclesia  a  verbo  kuKuv  veuit, 
hoc  observetur  piimum  ;  ideo  couversionera  hominuni  vocationem 
vocari,  non  tantura  quia  Deus  eos  per  se  suumque  Verbum,  quasi 
clamore,  vocat;  sed  etiam  quia  sicut  herus  ex  turba.  famulorum 
certos  aliquus  ad  aliqua  singularia  munia  evocat,  sic  Deus  quoque 
turn  totutn  p()pulum  suum  vocat  ad  cultum  suum  (IIos.  xi.  1)  turn 
etiam  singulos  homines  ad  certas  singularesque  functiones.  (Act, 
xiii.  2.)  Quoniam  autom  non  tantum  vocatur  Populus  Dei  ad  cul- 
tum Dei,  sed  etiam  vocatur  ex  reliqua  turba  aut  eonfusione  generis 
huniani,  ideo  aicitur  Ecclesia,  quasi  dicas,  Evocatii  divinitus  ex  reli- 
qufl  impiorum  colluvie,  ad  culiuui  cclebratioucmque  Dei,  ot  ceter- 
nam  felicitatem. 


NEW    TEST  ANIENT.  ^19 

often,  the  Septuagint  supplies  the  link  of  connexion, 
the  point  of  transition,  the  word  being  there  pre- 
pared for  its  highest  meaning  of  all.  "When  the 
Alexandrian  translators  undertook  the  rendering:  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  they  found  in  them  two 
constantly  recurring  words,  namely  h^s  and  brip^. 
For  these  they  employed  generally,  and  as  their 
most  adequate  Greek  equivalents,  awaycoyt]  and 
eicKkrjaia.  The  rule  which  they  seem  to  have  pre- 
scribed to  themselves  is  as  follows  —  to  render  nn? 
for  the  most  part  b}^  avvaywyn)  (Exod.  xii.  3 ;  Lev. 
iv.  13;  I^umb.  i.  2,  and  altogether  more  than  an 
hundred  times),  and  whatever  other  renderings  of 
the  word  they  may  adopt,  in  no  single  case  to  ren- 
der it  by  iKKXrjaia.  It  were  to  be  wished  that  they 
had  shown  the  same  consistency  in  respect  of  bnp; 
but  they  have  not ;  for  wliile  iKKXriaia  is  their  stand- 
ing word  for  it  (Deut.  xviii.  16 ;  Judg.  xx.  2 ;  1  Kings 
viii.  14,  and  in  all  some  seventy  times),  they  too 
often  render  this  also  by  avvaytoyr)  (Lev.  iv.  13 ; 
Xumb.  x.  -i ;  Deut.  v.  22,  and  in  all  some  five  and 
twenty  times),  thus  breaking  down  for  the  Greek 
reader  the  distinction  which  undoubtedly  exists  be- 
tween the  words.  Our  English  translation  has  the 
same  lack  of  a  consistent  rendering.  Its  two  words 
are  '  congregation '  and  '  assembly ; '  but  instead  of 
constantly  assigning  one  to  one,  and  one  to  the 
other,  it  renders  m'i:'  now  by  '  congregation '  (Lev. 


20 


SYNONYMS    OF    THE 


X.  17 ;  Numb.  i.  16 ;  Josh.  ix.  27),  and  now  by  '  as- 
sembly '  (Lev.  iv.  13) ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  hnp 
only  sometimes  by  'assembly'  (Judg.  xxi.  8;  2 
Chron.  xxx.  23),  but  much  oftener  by  '  congrega- 
tion '  (Judg.  xxi.  5 ;  Josh.  viii.  35).  There  is  an 
interesting  discussion  by  Yitringa  {De  Synag.  Yet. 
pp.  77 — 89)  on  the  distinction  between  these  two 
Hebrew  synonyms  ;  the  result  of  which  is  summed 
up  in  the  following  statements :  ISTotat  proprie  hrvp 
universam  alicujus  populi  multitudinem,  vinculis 
societatis  unitam  et  rempublicam  sive  civitatem 
quandam  constituentem,  cum  vocabulum  ms  ex 
indole  et  vi  significationis  suse  tantum  dicat  quem- 
cunque  hominum  coetum  et  conventum,  sive  mino- 
rem  sive  majorem  (p.  80).  And  again  :  ^vi^aycoyT], 
ut  et  m:),  semper  significat  ca^tum  conjunctum  et 
congregatum,  etiamsi  nullo  forte  vinculo  ligatum, 
sed  y  iKKXrjala  [=  bnp]  designat  multitudinem  ali- 
quam,  qu^e  populum  constituit,  per  leges  et  vincula 
inter  se  junctam,  etsi  ssepe  fiat  ut  non  sit  coacta  vel 
cogi  possit  (p.  88). 

Accepting  this  as  a  true  distinction,  remember- 
ing too  the  probable  etymological  connexion  be- 
tween hnp  and  the  Greek  KoXelv,  and  thus  its  rela- 
tionship, once  removed,  with  iKKXTjcria,  as  indeed 
also  with  the  old  Latin  '  calare,'  and  our  own  '  call,' 
we  shall  see  that  it  was  not  without  due  reason 
that  our  Lord  (Matt.  xvi.  18  ;  xviii.  17)  and  His 


NEW    TESTA MICXT.  21 

Apostles  claimed  this,  as  the  nobler  word,  to  desig- 
nate the  new  society  of  which  He  was  the  Fonnder, 
being,  as  it  was,  a  society  knit  together  by  the 
closest  spiritual  bonds,  and  altogether  independent 
of  space. 

Yet  for  all  this  we  do  not  find  the  title  iKKXrjala 
altogether  withdrawn  from  the  Jewish  congrega- 
tion ;  that  too  was  "  the  Church  in  the  wilderness  " 
(Acts  A'ii.  38) ;  for  Christian  and  Jewish  differed 
only  in  degree,  and  not  in  kind.  Kor  yet  do  we 
find  avvaycoy7J  wholly  renounced  by  the  Church  ; 
the  latest  honourable  use  of  it  in  the  JSTew  Testa- 
ment, indeed  the  only  Christian  use  of  it  there,  is 
by  that  Apostle,  to  whom  it  was  especially  given  to 
maintain  unbroken  to  the  latest  possible  moment 
the  outward  bonds  connecting  the  Synagogue  and 
the  Church  (Jam.  ii.  2).  Occasionally  also  by  the 
early  Fathers,  by  Ignatius  for  instance  (^.  ad 
PoJyc.  4),  we  find  avvaywyi]  still  employed  as  an 
lionourable  designation  of  the  Church,  or  of  her 
places  of  assembly.  Still  there  were  causes  at 
work,  which  could  not  but  induce  the  faithful  to 
liave  less  and  less  pleasure  in  the  application  of  this 
name  to  themselves ;  which  led  them  in  the  end  to 
leave  it  altogether  to  those,  whom  in  the  latest  book 
of  the  canon  the  Lord  had  characterized  for  their 
fierce  opposition  to  the  truth  even  as  "  the  syna- 
gogue of  Satan"  (Eev.  iii.  9).      Thus  the  greater 


22  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

fitness  and  nobleness  of  the  title  eKKXrjcrUi  has  been 
already  noted.  Add  to  this  that  the  Church  was 
ever  rooting  itself  more  predominantly  in  the  soil 
of  heathendom,  breaking  off  more  entirely  from  its 
Jewish  stock  and  stem.  This  of  itself  wonld  have 
led  the  faithful  to  the  letting  fall  of  avva<ycDyy)^  a 
word  at  once  of  nnfrequent  nse  in  classical  Greek, 
and  permanently  associated  with  Jewish  worship, 
and  to  the  ever  more  exclusive  appropriation  to 
themselves  of  i/cKXyala,  so  familiar  already,  and  of 
60  honourable  a  significance,  in  Greek  ears. 

It  will  be  perceived  from  what  has  been  said, 
that  Augustine,  by  a  piece  of  good  fortune  which 
he  had  scarcely  a  right  to  expect,  was  only  half  in 
the  wrong,  when  transferring  his  Latin  etymologies 
to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew,  and  not  pausing  to  ask 
himself  whether  they  would  hold  good  there,  as  was 
beforehand  improbable  enough,  he  finds  the  reason 
for  attributing  avvaycoyr)  to  the  Jevv^ish,  and  eKKXTj- 
aia  to  the  Christian  Church,  in  the  fact  that  '  con- 
vocatio '  (==  i/cK\7](Tla)  is  a  nobler  term  than  '  con- 
gregatio '  (=  avvaywyr}),  the  first  being  properly 
the  calling  together  of  inen^  the  second  the  gather- 
ing together  {congregation  fi-om  congrego^  and  that 
from  grcdc)  of  cattle} 

*  Enarr.  in  Ps.  Ixxxi.  1.  In  synagogS.  populum  Israel  aecipi- 
mus,  quia  et  ipsorum  proprio  synagoga  dici  solet,  quamvis  et  Ec- 
clesia  dicta  sit.     Nostri  vero  Ecclesiam  nunqr.am  synagogam  dixe- 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  23 

The  7rav}]yvpi^  differs  from  tlie  eKKXrjala  in  this, 
that  in  the  €K/c\7]aria,  as  has  been  noted  ah-eady, 
there  lay  ever  the  sense  of  an  assembly  that  had 
come  together  for  the  transaction  of  business.  Tlie 
7ravy]yupi<;,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  great  assembly 
for  purposes  of  festal  rejoicing  ;  and  on  this  account 
it  is  found  joined  continually  with  iopr?],  as  by 
Philo,  Vit.  Mas.  ii.  7 ;  Ezek.  xlvi.  11  ;  cf.  Hos.  ii. 
11 ;  ix.  5  ;  the  word  having  given  us  '  panegyric,' 
which  is  properly  a  speech  made  on  such  an  occa- 
sion. Business  might  grow  out  of  the  fact  that 
such  multitudes  were  assembled,  since  many,  and 
for  various  reasons,  would  be  glad  to  avail  them- 
selves of  the  circumstance ;  but  only  in  the  same 
way  as  a  'fair'  grew  out  of  a  'feria,'  or  holy-day. 
Strabo  (x.  5)  notices  the  business-like  aspect  which 
the  irav'q'yvpeL^  commonly  assumed :  tj  re  7ravi]yvpL<; 
ifjbiroptKov  TV  TTpajfjia :  cf  Pausanias,  x.  32.  9  ;  and 
this  was  to  such  an  extent  the  prominent  character 
of  them,  that  the  Eomans  translated  Travijyvpig  by 
the   Latin   'mercatus,'   and    this    even   when    the 

runt,  sed  semper  Eeclesiam:  sive  discernendi  eaussa,  sive  quod 
inter  congregationem,  unde  synagoga,  et  convoeationem,  unde  Ec- 
clesia  nomen  accepit,  distet  aliquid ;  quod  scilicet  congregaH  et 
pecora  sclent,  atque  ipsa  proprie,  quorum  et  greges  proprie  dici- 
mus;  convocari  autem  magis  est  utentium  ratione,  sicut  sunt  homi- 
nes. So  also  the  author  of  a  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Proverbs 
formerly  ascribed  to  Jerome  {0pp.  vol.  v.  p.  533). 


2J:  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 


3; 


Olympic  games  were  intended  (Cicero,  Tusc.  v. 
Justin,  xiii.  5).  These  with  the  other  games  were 
eminently,  though  not  exclusively,  the  iravT^yvpei^ 
of  the  Greek  nation  (Thucyd.  i.  25).  If  we  keep 
this  festal  character  of  the  iravi'^yvpi^  in  mind,  we 
shall  lind  a  peculiar  fitness  in  the  employment  of 
this  Avord  at  Heb.  xii.  23 ;  where  only  in  the  ^ew 
Testament  it  occurs.  The  Apostle  is  there  setting 
forth  the  communion  of  the  Church  militant  on 
earth  with  the  Church  triumphant  in  heaven, — 
with  that  Church  from  which  all  labour  and  toil  have 
for  ever  passed  away  (Rev.  xxi.  4) ;  and  how  could 
\\Q  better  describe  this  last  than  as  a  Travriyvpt^;,  than 
as  the  festal  assembly  of  heaven  ? 


§  ii. — 6€t6T7](;,  OeoTT}^. 

NErrHER  of  these  words  occurs  more  than  once 
in  the  l!^ew  Testament :  6€l6t7)<;  only  at  Rom.  i.  20 ; 
OeoTT]^  at  Col.  ii.  9.  We  have  rendered  both  by 
'  Godhead  ; '  yet  they  must  not  be  regarded  as  iden- 
tical in  meaning,  nor  even  as  two  different  forms 
of  the  same  word,  which  in  process  of  time  have 
separated  off  from  one  another,  and  acquired  differ- 
ent shades  of  significance.  On  the  contrary,  there 
is  a  real  distinction  between  them,  and  one  which 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  25 

grounds  itself  on  their  different  derivations ;  Oeorr]? 
being  from  0e6?,  and  ^etoV???,  not  from  to  delov, 
which  might  be  said  to  be  the  same  thing  as  6c6?, 
but  from  the  adjective  Oeto^.  Comparing  the  two 
passages  where  they  severally  occur,  we  shall  at 
once  j)erceive  the  fitness  of  the  employment  of  one 
word  in  one,  of  the  other  in  the  other.  In  the  first 
(Rom.  i.  20),  St.  Paul  is  declaring  how  much  of 
God  may  be  known  from  the  revelation  of  Himself 
which  He  has  made  in  nature,  from  those  vestiges 
of  Himself  which  men  may  everywhere  trace  in 
the  world  around  them.  Yet  it  is  not  the  personal 
God  whom  any  man  may  learn  to  know  by  these 
aids ;  He  can  be  known  only  by  the  revelation  of 
Himself  in  His  Son ;  but  only  His  divine  attributes, 
His  majesty  and  glory.  This  Theophylact  feels, 
who  gives  iieyakeLorrj^;  as  equivalent  to  OetoTT}^  here ; 
and  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  St.  Paul  uses  this 
vaguer,  more  abstract,  and  less  personal  word,  just 
because  he  would  affirm  that  men  may  know  God's 
power  and  majesty  from  His  works ;  but  would  not 
imply  that  they  may  know  Himself  from  these  or 
from  anything  short  of  the  revelation  of  His  Eter- 
nal Word.'  But  in  the  second  passage  (Col.  ii.  9), 
St.  Paul  is  declaring  that  in  the  Son  there  dwells 
all  the  fulness  of  absolute  Godhead ;  they  were  no 

'Cicero  {Tusc.  i.  13):    Multi   de  Diis  prava  sentitint;  omnes 
tamen  esse  vim  et  nahiram  divinani  aibitrantiir. 
o 


26  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

mere  rays  of  divine  glory  wliicli  gilded  Him,  light- 
ing up  His  person  for  a  season  and  witli  a  splendour 
not  His  own ;  but  He  was,  and  is,  absolute  and 
perfect  God ;  and  the  Apostle  uses  deorrj^;  to  express 
this  essential  and  personal  Godhead  of  the  Son. 
Thus  Beza  rightly :  JN'on  dicit :  rrjv  decorvra,  i.  e. 
divinitatem,  sed  tt):^  OeoTTjra,  i.  e.  deitatem,  ut  ma- 
gis  etiam  exj^resse  loquatur ', . . .  y  OeioTrj^  attributa 
videtur  potius  quam  naturam  ipsam  declarare.  And 
Bengel ;  IN'on  modo  divings  virtutes,  sed  ipsa  divina 
natura.  De  "Wette  has  sought  to  express  the  dis- 
tinction in  his  German  translation,  rendering  Oeiorr)^ 
by  '  Gottlichkeit,'  and  e€6T7]<;  by  '  Gottheit.' 

There  have  not  been  wanting  those  who  have 
denied  that  any  such  distinction  was  intended  by 
St.  Paul;  and  they  rest  this  denial  on  the  assump- 
tion that  no  such  diflerence  between  the  forces  of 
the  two  w^ords  can  be  satisfactorily  made  out.  But 
even  supposing  that  it  did  not  appear  in  classic 
Greek,  this  of  itself  w^ould  be  in  no  way  decisive 
on  the  matter.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  might  for  all 
this  put  into  words,  and  again  draw  out  from  them, 
new  forces,  latent  distinctions  which  those  who  hith- 
erto employed  the  words  may  not  have  required, 
but  which  were  necessary  for  it.  And  that  this 
distinction  between  '  deity '  and  '  divinity,'  if  I  may 
use  these  words  to  rej)resent  severally  OeoTq^  and 
66l6t7)<^,  is  one  which  would  be  sti-ongly  felt,  and 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  27 

which  therefore  would  seek  its  utterance  in  Chris- 
tian theology ;  of  this  we  have  signal  proof  in  the 
fact  that  the  Latin  Christian  writers  were  not  con- 
tent with  '  divinitas,'  which  they  found  ready  to 
their  hand  in  the  writings  of  Cicero  and  of  others ; 
but  themselves  coined  '  deltas  '  as  the  only  adequate 
Latin  representative  of  the  Greek  Oeorr]^.  We  have 
Augustine's  express  testimony  to  the  fact  {De  Civ. 
Z>ei,  vii.  1) :  Hanc  divinitatem^  vel  ut  sic  dixerim 
deitatem  /  nam  et  hoc  verbo  uti  jam  nostros  non 
piget,  ut  de  Grseco  expressius  transferant  id  quod 
illi  detjTTjra  appellant,  &c.  C£  x.  1,  2.  But  not  to 
urge  this  nor  yet  the  several  etymologies  of  the 
words,  which  so  clearly  point  to  this  difference  in 
their  meanings,  examples,  so  far  as  they  extend,  go 
to  support  the  same.  Both  Oeorr}^  and  deioTr}^^  as  in 
general  the  abstract  words  in  every  language,  are 
of  late  formation ;  and  one  of  them,  deorr]^  is  ex- 
tremely rare ;  indeed  only  a  single  example  of  it 
from  classical  Greek  has  yet  been  brought  forward 
(Lucian,  Icarom.  9) ;  where,  however,  it  expresses, 
in  agreement  with  the  view  hero  affirmed^  Godhead 
in  the  absolute  sense,  or  at  least  in  as  absolute  a 
sense  as  the  heathen  could  conceive  it.  ©etor?;?  is 
a  very  much  commoner  word ;  and  all  the  instances 
of  its  employment  with  which  I  am  acquainted  also 
bear  out  the  distinction  which  has  been  here  drawn. 
There  is  ever  a  manifestation  of  the  divine,  there 


28  SYNu:s^YMS    OF   THE 

are  divine  attributes,  in  that  to  which  OecorTj^;  is  at- 
tributed, but  never  absolute  personal  Deity.  Thus 
Lucian,  {De  Caliim.  17),  attributes  Oeiorr)^  to  He- 
ph^stion,  when  after  his  death  Alexander  would 
have  raised  him  to  the  rank  of  a  god  ;  and  Plutarch 
speaks  of  the  decorrj^;  r?)?  yjrvxv'i  {^^  Plac.  Phil,  v. 
1 ;  cf  De  Isid.  et  Osir.  2 ;  Sull.  6),  with  various 
other  passages  to  the  like  effect.  In  conclusion,  it 
may  be  observed,  that  whether  tins  distinction  was 
intended,  as  I  am  fully  persuaded  it  was,  by  St. 
Paul  or  not,  it  established  itself  firmly  in  the  later 
theological  language  of  the  Church  —  the  Greek 
Fathers  using  never  ^etor???,  but  always  OeoTrj?,  as 
alone  adequately  expressing  the  essential  Godhead 
of  each  of  the  Three  Persons  in  the  Trinity. 


§  iii. — lepov,  va6<;. 

"We  have  only  in  our  Yersion  the  one  word 
^  temple,'  with  which  we  render  both  of  these ;  nor 
is  it  very  easy  to  perceive  in  what  manner  we  could 
have  indicated  the  distinction  between  them ;  whicli 
is  yet  a  very  real  one,  and  one  the  marking  of  which 
would  often  add  much  to  the  clearness  and  preci- 
sion of  the  sacred  narrative.  'lepSv  is  the  whole 
compass  of  the  sacred  enclosure,  the  re/^ei/o?,  in- 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  29 

eluding  the  outer  courts,  the  porches,  porticoes,  and 
other  buildings  subordinated  to  the  temple  itself. 
Na6<>,  on  the  other  hand,  from  valco,  '  habito,'  the 
proper  habitation  of  God,  is  the  temple  itself,  that 
properly  and  by  especial  right  so  called,  being  the 
kernel  and  centre  of  the  whole  ;  the  Holy  and  the 
Holy  of  Holies.  This  distinction,  one  that  existed 
and  was  recognized  in  profane  Greek  and  with 
reference  to  heathen  temples,  quite  as  much  as  in 
sacred  Greek  and  with  relation  to  tlie  temple  of  the 
true  God  (see  Herodotus,  i.  181,  183),  is  one,  I  be- 
lieve, always  assumed  in  all  passages  relating  to 
tlie  temple  at  Jerusalem,  alike  by  Josej^hus,  by 
Philo,  by  the  Septuagint  translators,  and  in  the 
ISTew  Testament.  Often  indeed  it  is  explicitly 
recognized,  as  by  Josephus,  {Antt.  viii.  3.  9),  who, 
having  described  the  building  of  the  va6<i  by  Solo- 
mon, goes  on  to  say ;  Naov  8'  e^coOev  kpov  wKoSofjLT]' 
aev  iv  rerpaycovo)  a'Xpj/jLarc.  In  another  passage 
{Antt.  xi.  4.  3),  he  describes  the  Samaritans  as  seek- 
ing permission  of  the  Jews  to  be  allowed  to  share 
in  the  rebuilding  of  God's  house  {o-vyKaraaKevdaai 
rov  vaov).  This  is  refused  them  (cf.  Ezra  iv.  2); 
but,  according  to  his  account,  it  was  j)ermitted  to 
them  d(j)tKvov/jL€voL<;  et?  to  lepov  cre^eLv  rov  Seuv — 
a  privilege  denied  to  mere  Gentiles,  who  might  not, 
under  penalty  of  death,  pass  beyond  their  own 
Court  (Acts  xxi.  29,  30). 


30  SYNONYMS    OF   THE. 

The  distinction  may  be  bronght  to  bear  with 
advantage  on  several  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. When  Zacharias  entered  into  "  the  temple 
of  the  Lord  "  to  burn  incense,  the  people  who  wait- 
ed his  return,  and  who  are  described  as  standing 
"  without "  (Luke  i.  10),  were  in  one  sense  in  the 
temple  too,  that  is  the  lepov^  while  he  alone  entered 
into  the  va6<^,  the  '  temple '  in  its  more  limited  and 
auguster  sense.  We  read  continually  of  Christ 
teaching  '  in  the  temple '  (Matt.  xxvi.  55  ;  Luke  xxi. 
57 ;  John  viii.  20) ;  and  perhaps  are  at  a  loss  to 
understand  how  this  could  have  been  so ;  or  how 
long  conversations  could  there  have  been  maintain- 
ed, without  interrupting  the  service  of  God.  But 
this  is  ever  the  iepov^  the  porches  and  porticoes  of 
which  were  eminently  adapted  to  such  purposes, 
as  they  were  intended  for  them.  So  too  the  money 
changers,  the  buyers  and  sellers,  with  the  sheep 
and  oxen  whom  the  Lord  drives  out.  He  repels 
them  from  the  lepov^  and  not  from  the  vao^.  Irreve- 
rent as  was  their  intrusion,  they  yet  had  not  dared 
to  establish  themselves  in  the  temple  properly  so 
called  (Matt.  xxi.  23  ;  John  ii.  14).  On  the  other 
hand,  when  we  read  of  another  Zacharias  slain 
"  between  the  temple  and  the  altar  "  (Matt,  xxiii. 
35),  we  have  only  to  remember  that  '  temple '  is 
mo?  here,  at  once  to  get  rid  of  a  difficulty,  which 
may  perhaps  have  presented  itself  to  many — this, 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  31 

namely,  Was  not  the  altar  in  the  temple?  how 
then  could  any  locality  be  described  as  hetween 
these  two  ?  In  the  lepov^  doubtless,  the  brazen  altar 
to  which  allusion  is  here  made  was,  but  not  in  the 
va6<;^  "  in  the  court  of  the  house  of  the  Lord  "  (cf. 
Josephus,  Antt.  viii.  4. 1),  where  the  sacred  histo- 
rian (2  Chron.  xxiv.  21)  lays  the  scene  of  this  mur- 
der, but  not  in  the  house  of  the  Lord,  or  va6<;  itself. 
Again,  how  vividly  does  it  set  forth  to  us  the 
despair  and  defiance  of  Judas,  that  he  presses  even 
into  the  vao^  (Matt,  xxvii.  5),  into  that  which  was 
set  apart  for  the  priests  alone,  and  there  casts  down 
before  them  the  accursed  price  of  blood !  Those 
expositors  who  afiirm  that  here  vao^;  stands  for  kpov^ 
should  adduce  some  other  passage  in  which  the  one 
is  put  for  the  other. 


§  iv. — iTTiTifidco,  iXeyx^.  {alria,  eXey^^o?.) 

One  may  '  rebuke '  another  without  bringing 
the  rebuked  to  a  conviction  of  any  fanlt  on  his 
part ;  and  this,  either  because  there  was  none,  and 
the  rebuke  was  therefore  unneeded  or  unjust ;  or 
else  because,  though  there  was  such  fault,  the  re- 
buke was  ineffectual  to  bring  the  offender  to  own 
it ;  and  in  this  possibility  of  ^  rebuking '  for  sin, 


32  SYXONYMS    OF   THE 

without  '  convincing '  of  sin,  lies  tlie  distinction  be- 
tween these  two  words.  In  eTnnfiav  lies  simply  the 
notion  of  rebuking ;  which  word  can  therefore  be 
used  of  one  unjustly  checking  or  blaming  another ; 
in  this  sense  Peter  '  rebuked '  Jesus  {rip^aro  i-TrcTo- 
fidv,  Matt.  xvi.  22 ;  cf.  xix.  13 ;  Luke  xviii.  39) : 
—  or  ineffectually  and  without  any  profit  to  the 
person  rebuked,  who  is  not  therefore  made  to  see 
his  sin;  as  when  the  penitent*  thief  '  rebuked ' 
(eVeTi/xa)  his  fellow  malefactor  (Luke  xxiii.  40 ;  cf, 
Mark  ix.  25).  But  iXeyx^tv  is  a  much  more  preg- 
nant word ;  it  is  so  to  rebuke  another,  with  such 
efiectual  wielding  of  the  victorious  arms  of  the 
truth,  as  to  bring  him,  I  do  not  say  to  a  confession, 
but  to  a  conviction,  of  his  sin;  just  as  in  juristic 
Greek,  it  is  not  merely  to  reply  to,  but  to  refute,  an 
opponent. 

"When  we  keep  this  distinction  well  in  mind, 
what  a  light  does  it  throw  on  a  multitude  of  pas- 
sages in  the  ISTew  Testament ;  and  how  much  deep- 
er a  meaning  does  it  give  them.  Thus  our  Lord 
could  demand,  "  "Which  of  you  convinceth  {iXiyx^i) 
Me  of  sin  ? "  (John  viii.  46.)  ISTumbers  rebuked 
ilim ;  numbers  laid  sin  to  His  charge  (Matt.  ix.  3 ; 
John  ix.  16) ;  but  none  brought  sin  home  to  His 
conscience.  Other  passages  which  will  gain  from 
realizing  the  fulness  of  the  meaning  of  eXeyx^iv,  ai-e 
John  iii.  20  ;  viii.  9  ;  1  Cor.  xiv.  24,  25  ;  but  above 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  33 

all,  the  great  passage,  John  xvi.  8 ;  "  When  He 
[the  Comforter]  is  come.  He  will  rejyrove  the  world 
of  sin,  and  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment ;"  so 
we  have  rendered  the  words,  following  in  our  '  re- 
prove '  the  Latin  '  arguet ; '  although  few,  I  think, 
that  have  in  any  degree  sought  to  sound  the  depth 
of  our  Lord's  words,  but  will  admit  that  '  convince,' 
which  unfortunately  our  translators  have  relegated 
to  the  margin,  would  have  been  the  preferable  ren- 
dering, giving  a  depth  and  fulness  of  meaning  to 
this  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  '  reprove '  in 
some  part  fails  to  express.*  ''He  who  shall  come 
in  my  room,  shall  so  bring  home  to  the  world  its 
own  '  sin,'  my  perfect  '  righteousness,'  God's  coming 
'judgment,'  shall  so  'convince'  it  of  these,  that  it 
shall  be  obliged  itself  to  acknowledge  them ;  and 
in  this  acknowledgment  may  find,  shall  be  in  the 
right  way  to  find,  its  own  blessedness  and  salva- 
tion." 

Between  alria  and  ekeyx^o^  a  diflference  of  a 
similar  character  exists.  Alrlo,  is  an  accusation,  but 
whether  false  or  true  the  word  does  not  attempt  to 

^  Lnmpe  gives  excellently  'well  the  force  of  this  ixiy^ci :  Opus 
Doctoris,  qui  veritatem  quse  hactenus  non  est  agnita  ita  ad  con- 
scientiom  etiam  renitentis  demonstrat,  ut  yictas  dare  mauus  coga- 
tur.  See  an  admirable  discussion  on  the  word,  especially  as  here 
used,  in  Archdeacon  Hare's  Mission  of  the  Comforter,  1st  edit,  pp. 
628—544. 

2* 


34  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

anticipate ;  and  thus  it  could  be  apx^lied,  indeed  it 
was  applied  to  the  accusation  made  against  the  Lord 
of  Glory  Himself  (Matt,  xxvii.  37);  but  eXey^o? 
implies  not  merely  the  charge,  but  the  truth  of  the 
charge,  and  the  manifestation  of  the  truth;  nay 
more  than  this,  very  often  also  the  acknowledgment, 
if  not  outward,  yet  inward,  of  the  truth  of  the 
charge  on  the  side  of  the  party  accused ;  it  being 
the  glorious  prerogative  of  the  truth  in  its  highest 
operation  not  merely  to  assert  itself;  and  to  silence 
the  adversary,  but  to  silence  him  by  convincing  him 
of  his  error.  Demosthenes,  Con.  Androt.  p.  600  : 
TId/jL7ro\v  XoiBopla  re  koI  alria  Ke')(copt(T^evov  iarlv 
iXiyx^ov.  alria  fiev  yap  iarcv^  orav  tc<;  i/rtXot>  '^(^prjad- 
/jL€vo<;  Xoyay  firj  7rapda')(7]TaL  iridTiv^  wv  Xeyer  eXey^j^o? 
Si,  orav  cjv  av  eXiry  Ti9,  ical  TdXr}6e<i  6/iov  Bel^rj. 
Compare  Aristotle,  lihet.  ad  Alex.  13  :  "EXeyxo^ 
earn,  fiev  o  fir]  Bwarbv  dXX(o<;  e^^etv  dXX^  ovtcd<^,  w? 
9;/xet9  Xeyo/jL€v.  By  our  serviceable  distinction  be- 
tween '  convict '  and  '  convince '  we  maintain  a  dif- 
ference between  the  judicial  and  the  moral  eXey^o?. 
Both  will  meet  together  in  the  last  day,  when  every 
-  condemned  sinner  will  be  at  once  '  convicted  '  and 
'  convinced ; '  all  which  is  implied  in  that  "  he  was 
speechless  "  of  the  guest  who  was  found  by  the 
king  without  a  marriage  garment  (Matt.  xxii.  12  ; 
cf  Rom.  iii.  4). 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  35 


§  Y. — dvd6TjfjLa,  dvdOefia. 

Many  would  deny  that  tliere  is  any  room  foi 
synonymous  discrimination  in  respect  of  these  two 
words,  affirming  them  to  be  merely  different  spell- 
ings of  the  same  word,  and  promiscuously  used ; 
which  if  it  were  the  fact,  their  fitness  for  a  j)lace  in 
a  book  of  synonyms  w^ould  of  course  disappear; 
difference  as  well  as  likeness  being  necessary  for 
this.  This  much,  indeed,  of  what  they  affirm  is 
perfectly  true — namely,  that  dvddrnxa  and  avdOefjua, 
like  evp7]/ia  and  evpe/ia,  eTTLOrjfjLa  and  eV/^e/xa,  must 
severally  be  regarded  as  having  been  at  first  only 
different  pronunciations,  which  issued  in  different 
sjDellings,  of  one  and  the  same  word.  But  it  is  cer- 
tain that  nothing  is  more  common  than  for  slightly 
different  orthographies  of  the  same  word  finally  to 
settle  and  resolve  themselves  into  different  words, 
with  different  provinces  of  meaning  w^hich  they 
have  severally  appropriated  to  themselves ;  and 
which  henceforth  they  maintain  in  perfect  inde- 
pendence one  of  the  other.  I  have  elsewhere  given 
a  considerable  number  of  exam23les  of  the  kind ; 
and  a  very  few  may  here  suffice  :  Opdao^  and  Odp(To<;, 
^Thrax'  and  'Threx,'  'rechtlich'  and  ^redlich,' 
'harnais'  and  'harnois,'  'allay'  and  'alloy.'     That 


SYKOoS^YMS    OF   THE 


which  may  be  affirmed  of  all  thesej^  may  also,  I  am 
persuaded,  be  affirmed  in  respect  of  avad-qfia  and 
avddefia.  Whether  this  were  so  or  not  w^as  a  ques- 
tion debated  with  no  little  heat  by  some  of  the 
great  early  Hellenists,  and  names  of  weight  and 
importance  are  ranged  on  either  side ;  Salmasius 
being  the  greatest  name  among  those  who  main- 
tained the  existence  of  a  distinction,  at  least  in 
Hellenistic  Greek ;  Beza  among  those  who  denied 
it.  Perhaps  here,  as  in  so  many  cases,  the  truth 
did  not  absolutely  lie  with  the  combatants  on  either 
part,  but  lay  rather  between  them,  though  much 
neai-er  to  one  j)art  than  the  other ;  the  most  reason- 
able conclusion,  after  weighing  all  the  evidence  on 
either  side,  being  this — that  such  a  distinction  did 
exist,  and  was  allowed  by  many,  but  was  by  no 
means  recognized  or  observed  by  all. 

In  classical  Greek  avdOrj/na  is  quite  the  predomi- 
nant form,  and  that  which  alone  Attic  writers  allow 
(Lobeck,  PhrifnicJuis,  pp.  249,  445).  It  is  there  the 
technical  word  by  which  all  such  costly  offerings  as 
were  presented  to  the  gods,  and  then  suspended  or 
otherwise  exposed  to  view  in  their  temples,  all  by 
the  Romans  termed  '  donaria,'  as  trij^ods,  crowns, 
silver  and  golden  vases,  and  the  like,  were  called  ; 
which  were  in  this  way  separated  for  ever  from  all 
common  and  profane  uses,  and  openly  dedicated  to 
the  honour  of  that  deity  to  whom  tliey  were  present- 


]SrEW    TESTAMENT.  37 

ed  at  the  first  (Xenophon,  Anctb.  v.  3.  5  ;  Paiisanias, 
X.  9). 

But  with  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  Scrip- 
tures into  Greek,  a  new  thought  demanded  to  find 
utterance.  Those  Scriptures  spoke  of  tioo  ways  in 
which  things  and  persons  might  be  holy,  set  apart 
for  God,  devoted  to  Him.  The  children  of  Israel 
were  devoted  to  Him ;  God  was  glorified  in  them  : 
the  wicked  Canaanites  were  devoted  to  Him ;  God 
was  glorified  on  them.  This  awful  fact,  that  things 
and  persons  might  be  devoted  to  Him  for  good,  and 
for  evil ;  that  there  was  such  a  thing  as  being  "  ac- 
cursed to  tJie  Lord^^  (Josh.  vi.  IT;  cf.  Deut.  xiii.  IG  ; 
ISTumb.  xxi.  1 — 3) ;  that  of  the  spoil  of  the  same 
city,  a  part  might  be  consecrated  to  the  Lord  in 
His  treasury,  and  a  part  utterly. destroyed,  and  yet 
this  part  and  that  be  alike  dedicated  to  Him  (Josh. 
vi.  19,  21) ;  that  in  more  ways  than  one  a  thing 
might  be  holy  to  Him  (Lev.  xvii.  28), —  claimed  its 
expression  and  utterance  now,  and  found  it  in  the 
two  uses  of  one  word ;  which,  while  it  remained  the 
same,  just  diflferenced  itself  enough  to  indicate  in 
which  of  the  two  senses  it  was  employed.  And 
here  let  it  be  observed,  that  those  who  find  separa- 
tion from  God  as  the  central  idea  of  avdOeiia,  are 
quite  unable  to  trace  a  common  bond  of  meaning 
between  it  and  avdOrj^ia^  which  last  is  2)lainly  sej)a- 
ration  to  God ;  or  to  show  the  point  at  which  they 


38  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

diverge  from  one  another.     Rather  is  it  separation 
to  God  in  both  cases.  ^ 

Ah'eady  in  the  Septuagint  we  begin  to  find 
avdOij/jua  and  dvadefia  disengaging  themselves  from 
one  another,  and  from  a  confused  and  promiscuous 
nse.  How  far,  indeed,  the  distinction  is  observed 
there,  and  whether  universally,  it  is  hard  to  deter- 
mine, from  the  variety  of  readings  in  various  edi- 
tions ;  but  in  one  of  the  later  critical  editions  (that 
of  Tischendorf,  1850),  many  passages  (such  for  in- 
stance as  Judith  xvi.  19  ;  Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29),  which 
appear  in  some  earlier  editions  negligent  of  the 
distinction,  are  observant  of  it.  In  the  I^ew  Testa- 
ment the  distinction  that  dvdOrifjia  is  used  to  express 
the  '  sacrum '  in  a  better  sense,  dvdOefia  in  a  worse, 
is  invariably  maintained.  It  must  be  allowed,  in- 
deed, that  the  passages  there  are  not  numerous 
enough  to  convince  a  gainsayer ;  he  may  attribute 
to  hazard  the  fact  that  they  fall  in  with  this  distinc- 

^  Flacius  Illyrieus  {Clavis  Scripturce,  s.  v.  Anathema),  excellent- 
ly explains  the  manner  in  which  the  two  apparently  opposed 
meanings  unfold  themselves  from  a  single  root:  Anathema  igitur 
est  res  ant  persona  Deo  obligata  ant  addicta;  sive  quia  Ei  ab 
hominibus  est  pietatis  causA  oblata:  sive  quia  justitia  Dei  talcs,  ob 
singularia  aliqua  piacula  veluti  in  suos  carceres  pcenasque  abripuit, 
comprobante  et  deelarante  id  etiam  hominum  sententia.. . . .  Duplici 
enim  de  causS,  Deus  vult  aliquid  habere;  vel  tanquam  gratum 
acceptumque  ac  sibi  oblatum ;  vel  tanquam  sibi  exosum,  suseque 
irse  ac  castigationi  subjectum  ac  debitum. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  39 

tion ;  dvdOrj/jLa  occurring  only  once  :  "  Some  sjDake 
of  the  temjDle,  liow  it  was  adorned  with  goodly 
stones  and  gifts  "  {dvaOrj^aai^  Lnke  xxi.  5)  ;  and 
dvaOefxa  no  more  than  six  times  (Acts  xxiii.  14 ; 
Kom.  ix.  3  ;  1  Cor.  xii.  3  ;  xvi.  22  ;  Gal.  i.  8,  9). 
Still  none  can  deny  that  so  far  as  these  uses  reach, 
they  confirm  this  view  of  the  matter ;  while  if  we 
turn  to  the  Greek  Fathers,  we  shall  find  some  of 
them  indeed  neglecting  the  distinction ;  but  others, 
and  these  of  the  greatest  among  them,  not  merely 
implicitly  allowing  it,  as  does  Clemens  of  Alexan- 
dria {Coh.  ad  Gen.  4),  dvddiifia  (y€<y6vafjLev  rS  ©eoi 
vTrep  Xpiarov  :  where  the  context  plainly  shows  the 
meaning  to  be,  we  have  become  a  costly  offering  to 
God;  but  explicitly  recognising  and  drawing  out 
the  difference  with  accuracy  and  precision.  See, 
for  instance,  Chrysostom,  Horn.  xvi.  in  Bom.^  as 
quoted  in  Suicer's  Thesaurus,  s.  v.  dvadefxa. 

And  thus,  putting  all  which  has  been  urged  to- 
gether,—  the  ci  priori  probability,  drawn  from  simi- 
lar phenomena  in  all  languages,  that  the  two  fomis 
of  a  word  would  gradually  have  two  different  mean- 
ings attached  to  them ;  the  wondrous  way  in  which 
the  two  aspects  of  dedication  to  God  are  thus  set 
out  by  slightly  diflerent  forms  of  the  same  word ; 
the  fact  that  every  place  in  the  ]^ew  Testament, 
where  the  words  occur,  falls  in  with  this  scheme  ; 
the  usage,  though  not  perfectly  consistent,  of  later 


4:0  STNO^'YMS    OF    THE 

ecclesiastical  books, — I  cannot  but  conclude  that 
dvddrj^a  and  dvddefia  are  employed  not  accidentally 
by  the  sacred  writers  of  the  IN'ew  Covenant  in  dif- 
ferent senses  ;  but  that  St.  Luke  uses  dvdOrj/ia,  be- 
cause he  intends  to  express  that  which  is  dedicated 
to  God  for  its  own  honour  as  well  as  for  God's 
glory;  St.  Paul  uses  avdOe/na,  because  he  intends 
that  which  is  devoted  to  God,  but  devoted,  as  were 
the  Canaanites  of  old,  to  his  honour  indeed,  but  its 
own  utter  loss ;  even  as  in  the  end  every  intelligent 
being,  capable  of  knowing  and  loving  God,  must 
be  either  dvddTjfia  or  dvddefia  to  Him.  (See  Wit- 
sius,  Misc.  Sac.  vol.  ii.  p.  5i,  sqq.  ;  Deyling,  Ohss. 
Sac.  vol.  ii.  p.  495,  sqq.) 


§  vi. — 7rpo(j>r)T€V(o,  /jLavreuofiat. 

n po(f}r}T6va)  is  a  word  of  constant  occurrence  in 
the  jSTew  Testament ;  pLavrevofiai  occurs  but  once, 
namely  at  Acts  xvi.  16  ;  where  of  the  girl  possessed 
with  the  "  spirit  of  divination,"  or  sj^irit  of  Apollo, 
it  is  said  that  she  "  brought  her  masters  much  gain 
hy  soothsaying'^^  {ixavTevofxivrj).  Tlie  abstinence  from 
the  nse  of  this  word  on  all  other  occasions,  and  the 
use  of  it  on  this  one,  is  very  observable,  furnishing 
as  it  does  a  very  notable  example  of  that  instinctive 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  41 

wisdom  wlierewith  the  inspired  writers  keep  aloof 
from  all  words,  tlie  employment  of  which  would 
have  tended  to  break  down  the  distinction  between 
lieathenism  and  revealed  religion.  Thus  evhaifMovla^ 
although  from  a  heathen  point  of  view  a  religious 
word,  for  it  ascribes  happiness  to  the  favour  of  the 
deity,  is  yet  never  employed  to  express  Christian 
blessedness  ;  nor  could  it  fitly  have  been  so,  Bal/icov, 
which  supplies  its  base,  involving  polytheistic  error. 
In  like  manner  aperrj,  the  standing  word  in  heathen 
ethics  for  '  virtue,'  is  of  very  rarest  occurrence  in 
the  JSTew  Testament ;  it  is  found  but  once  in  all  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul  (Phil.  iv.  8) ;  and  where  else 
(which  is  only  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Peter),  in  quite 
difierent  uses  from  those  in  which  Aristotle  employs 
it.'  In  the  same  way  rjdr],  which  gives  us  '  ethics,' 
occurs  only  on  a  single  occasion,  and,  which  indi- 
cates that  its  absence  elsewhere  is  not  accidental, 
this  once  is  in  a  quotation  from  a  heathen  poet 
(1  Cor.  XV.  33).  The  same  precision  in  maintaining 
these  lines  of  demarcation  is  again  strikingly  mani- 
fested in  the  fact  of  the  constant  use  of  OvaiaaTTjpiov 
for  the  altar  of  the  true  God,  occurring  as  it  does 
more  tlian  twenty  times  in  the  books  of  the  l^ew 
Covenant,  while  on  the  one  occasion  when  an  hea- 

'  Veibura  nimium  liumile, —  as  Beza,  accounting  for  its  absence, 
says, —  si  cum  donis  S.  S.  eomparetar. 


42  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

then  altar  has  need  to  be  named,  the  word  is 
changed,  and  instead  of  OvaiaarijpLov  ('  altare ' ), 
Bcofio^  ('ara')  is  nsed  (Acts  xvii.  23);  the  feeliDg 
which  dictated  the  exchision  of  ficofio^  long  survi- 
ving in  the  Church,  so  that,  as  altogether  profane, 
it  was  quite  shut  out  from  Christian  terminology 
(August! ,  Handbucli  der  Christlicher  Archdologie^ 
vol.  i.  p.  412). 

In  conformity  with  this  same  law  of  moral  fit- 
ness in  the  selection  of  words,  we  meet  with  irpo- 
(j)r}Tev6tv  as  the  constant  word  in  the  JJsTew  Testament 
to  express  the  prophesying  by  the  Spirit  of  God ; 
while  directly  a  sacred  writer  has  need  to  make 
mention  of  the  lying  art  of  heathen  divination,  he 
employs  this  word  no  longer,  but  fiavreveaOat  in 
j)reference  (cf.  1  Sam.  xxviii.  8  ;  Deut.  xviii.  10). 
What  the  essential  difference  between  the  two 
things,  prophesying  and  soothsaying,  the  '  weissa- 
gen '  and  the  ^  wahrsagen  'is,  and  wliy  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  kee^)  them  distinct  and  apart  by  different 
terms  used  to  designate  the  one  and  the  other,  we 
shall  best  perceive  and  understand,  when  we  have 
considered  the  etymology  of  one,  at  least,  of  the 
words.  Mavrevo/xai  being  from  /xai^rt?,  is  through 
it  connected,  as  Plato  has  taught  us,  with  fj,avla  and 
fiaivofjiai.  It  will  follow  from  this,  that  the  word 
has  reference  to  the  tumult  of  the  mind,  the  fur}^, 
the  temporary  madness  under  which  those  were, 


NEW    TE^iJMENT.  43 

who  were  supposed  to  be  j^ossessed  by  tlie  god, 
during  the  time  that  they  delivered  their  oracles  ; 
this  niantic  fury  of  theirs  displaying  itself  in  the 
eyes  rolling,  the  lips  foaming,  the  hair  flying,  with 
all  other  tokens  of  a  more  than  natural  agitation.^ 
It  is  quite  possible  that  these  symptoms  were  some- 
times produced,  as  no  doubt  they  were  often  height- 
ened, in  the  seers.  Pythonesses,  Sibyls  and  the  like, 
by  the  use  of  drugs,  or  by  other  artificial  means. 
Yet  no  one  who  believes  that  real  spiritual  forces 
underlie  all  forms  of  idolatry,  but  will  also  believe 
that  there  was  often  much  more  in  these  manifesta- 
tions than  mere  trickery  of  this  kind ;  no  one  with 
any  insight  into  the  awful  mystery  of  the  false  wor- 
ships of  the  world,  but  will  believe  that  these  symp- 
toms were  the  evidence  and  expression  of  an  actual 
connexion  in  which  these  persons  stood  to  a  spirit- 
ual world  —  a  spiritual  world,  indeed,  which  was 
not  above  them,  but  beneath. 

'  Cicero,  who  loves  to  bring  out,  where  he  can,  superiorities  of 
the  Latin  language  over  the  Greek,  claims,  and  I  think  with  rea- 
son, such  a  superiority  here,  in  that  the  Latin  has  *  divinatio,'  a 
word  embodying  the  divine  character  of  prophecy,  and  the  fact 
that  it  was  a  gift  of  the  gods,  where  the  Greek  had  only  /xavTiKv, 
which,  seizing  not  the  thing  itself  at  any  central  point,  did  no 
more  than  set  forth  one  of  the  external  signs  which  accompanied 
its  giving.  {Be  Divin.  i.  1) :  Ut  alia  nos  melius  raulta  quam 
Gvaeci,  sic  huic  praestantissimaj  rei  nomen  nostri  a  divis ;  Grseci, 
ut  Plato  interpretatur,  a  furore  duxorunt. 


44  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

Eevelatioii,  on  the  other  hand,  knows  nothing 
of  this  mantic  fmy,  except  to  condemn  it.  '^  The 
spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets  " 
(1  Cor.  xiv.  32).  The  true  prophet  is,  indeed,  rapt 
out  of  himself;  he  is  "  in  the  Spirit"  (Rev.  i.  10) ; 
he  is  "  in  an  ecstasy  "  (Acts  xi.  5) ;  he  is  viro  TLvev- 
/jLaTo<;  'AjLov  (})€ p ofievo^;  (2  Pet.  i.  21),  which  is 
very  much  more  than  '  moved,'  as  we  have  rendered 
it ;  rather  '  getrieben,'  as  De  AVette  ;  and  we  must 
not  go  so  far  in  our  opposition  to  heathen  and  Mon- 
tanist  error  as  to  deny  this,  which  some,  especially 
of  those  engaged  in  controversy  with  the  Montanists, 
have  done.  But  then  he  is  not  lesicle  himself;  he 
is  lifted  cibove^  not  thus  set  heside^  his  every-day  self. 
It  is  not  discord  and  disorder,  but  a  higher  harmo- 
ny, a  diviner  order,  that  is  introduced  into  his  soul ; 
so  that  he  is  not  as  one  overborne  in  the  region  of 
his  lower  life  by  forces  stronger  than  his  ovrn,  by 
an  insurrection  from  beneath ;  but  his  spirit  is  lift- 
ed out  of  that  region  into  a  clearer  atmosphere,  a 
diviner  day,  than  any  in  which  at  other  times  it  is 
permitted  him  to  breathe.  All  that  he  before  had 
still  remains  his,  only  purged,  exalted,  quickened, 
by  a  power  higher  than  his  own,  but  yet  not  alien 
to  his  own  ;  for  man  is  most  truly  man,  when  he  is 
most  filled  with  the  fulness  of  God.'     Even  witliin 

'  See  John  Smith,  the  Cambridge  Platonist,  On  Prophecy  :  ch.  4. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  .45 

the  sphere  of  heathenism  itself,  the  superior  digni- 
ty of  the  7rpo(j)T]T7]<;  to  the  fidvTt<;  was  recognised ; 
and  recognised  on  these  very  grounds.  Thus  there 
is  a  well  known  and  often  cited  passage  in  the  Ti- 
mceus  of  Plato  (71  e,  72  a,  h),  where  exactly  for  this 
reason,  that  the  fiavri^  is  one  in  whom  the  powers 
of  the  understanding  are  suspended,  who,  according 
to  the  derivation  of  the  word,  more  or  less  rages, 
the  line  is  drawn  broadly  and  distinctly  between 
him  and  the  Trpocpijrr]^,  the  former  is  subordinated 
to  the  latter,  and  his  utterances  only  allowed  to  pass 
after  they  have  received  the  seal  and  approbation 
of  the  other.  The  truth  which  the  best  heatlien 
philosophy  had  a  glimpse  of  here,  was  permanently 
embodied  in  the  Christian  Church  in  the  fact  that, 
while  it  assumed  the  TrpocprjTeveiv  to  itself,  it  ascribed 
the  /jLavreuea-dao  to  that  heathenism  which  it  was 
about  to  displace  and  overthrow. 

TTic  difference  of  the  true  prophetical  Spirit  from  an  enthusiastical 
Imvosture. 


46  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 


§  vii. — TLficopia^  KoXacrt^. 

Of  these  words  the  former  occurs  but  once  in 
the  New  Testament  (Heb.  x.  29),  and  the  latter  only 
twice  (Matt.  xxv.  46  ;  1  John  iv.  18).  In  TLficopia, 
according  to  its  classical  use,  the  vindicative  charac- 
ter of  the  punishment  is  the  predominant  thought : 
it  is  the  Latin  '  ultio  ; '  punishment  as  satisfying  the 
inflicter's  sense  of  outraged  justice,  as  defending  his 
own  honour,  or  that  of  the  violated  laAV  ;  herein  its 
meaning  agrees  with  its  etymology,  being  from  rifjLi], 
and  ovpo<;,  opdco,  the  guardianship  or  protectorate  of 
honour.  In  KoXaai^^  on  the  other  hand,  is  more  the 
notion  of  punishment  as  it  has  reference  to  the  cor- 
rection and  bettering  of  him  that  endures  it ;  it  is 
'  castigatio,'  and  has  naturally  for  the  most  part  a 
milder  use  than  rt/ncopLa.  Thus  we  find  Plato 
{Protag.  323  6),  joining  Ko\aau%  and  vovdeTr]aei^ 
together :  and  the  whole  passage  to  the  end  of  the 
chapter  is  eminently  instructive  as  to  the  distinction 
between  the  words  :  ovBeU  KoXd^ec  rov^  dhiKOvvTa^; 
on  rjSl/CTjaep^  oaTi<;  /I't]  Mairep  Orfplov  dXoylarcD<;  rt- 
fjLO) pelraij  .  .  .  ciXXa  rov  fxeXXovTO<;  %«pij/,  Iva  jjli] 
avOa  dhiKrjar} :  the  same  change  of  the  words  which 
he  emj)loys,  occurring  again  twice  or  thrice  in  the 
sentence.     Compare  an  instructive  chapter  in  Cle- 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  47 

mens  of  Alexandria,  Strom,  iv.  24.  And  tins  is 
Aristotle's  distinction  {Rhet.  i.  10) :  hia(f)epei  he  rt- 
ficopla  KoX  KoKa(7i<i'  77  jxev  yap  KoXaac^  rod  'iTda')(OVTo<; 
eveKOL  ianv'  1)  he  TLfJLcopia,  rod  'itolovvto<;,  Xva  airo- 
TfkrjpcoOfj :  cf.  EtMc.  Nic.  iv.  5  :  Tifiaypia  iravei  t?}? 
opyrj<;^  rjhov'qv  avri  Tr]<;  Xutt?/?  ifJiiTOiovaa. 

It  would  be  a  very  serious  error,  however,  to 
attempt  to  transfer  this  distinction  in  its  entireness 
to  the  words  as  employed  in  the  Xew  Testament. 
The  /coXao-t?  alwvLO<^  of  Matt.  xxv.  46,  as  it  plainly 
itself  declares,  is  no  corrective  and  therefore  tem- 
porary discipline  ;  it  can  be  no  other  than  the  aOd- 
vaTo<;  Ttfxcopia  (Josephus,  Ij.  J.  ii.  8.  11),  the  dlhioi 
TLfxwplaL  (Plato,  Ax,  372  «),  with  which  the  Lord 
elsewhere  threatens  finally  impenitent  men  (Mark 
ix.  43 — 48) ;  for  in  proof  that  K6\aac<;  had  acquired 
in  Hellenistic  Greek  this  severer  sense,  and  was 
used  simply  as  punishment  or  torment,  with  no  ne- 
cessary underthought  of  the  bettering  through  it 
of  him  who  endured  it,  we  have  only  to  refer  to 
such  passages  as  the  following :  Josephus,  Antt.  xv. 
2.  2  ;  Philo,  De  Agricul.  9 ;  Mart.  Polycar.  2 ;  2 
Mace.  iv.  38  ;  Wisd.  of  Sol.  xix.  4.  This  much,  in- 
deed, of  Aristotle's  distinction  still  remains,  and 
may  be  recognised  in  the  sacred  usage  of  the  words, 
that  in  Ko\aaL<;  the  relation  of  the  punishment  to 
tlie  punished,  in  TLjjLwpla  to  the  punisher,  is  pre- 
dominant. 


48  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 


§  yiii. — a\r}6j]<;.  aXrjdivo^. 

In  tlie  Latin  '  verax '  and  ^  verus '  would  seve- 
rally represent  these  two  words,  and  in  the  main 
reproduce  the  distinctions  existing  between  them ; 
indeed  the  Yulgate  does  commonly  by  their  aid  in- 
dicate whether  akyjOrj^  or  oXtjOlvo^  stands  in  the 
original:  but  the  English  language  has  only  the 
one  word  '  true '  by  which  to  render  them  both  ;  so 
that  of  necessity,  and  by  no  fault  of  the  translators, 
the  difference  between  them  disappears  in  our  ver- 
sion. And  yet  this  difference  is  a  most  real  one. 
What  exactly  the  nature  of  it  is,  a  single  example 
wall  at  once  make  evident.  God  is  Qeo<;  dXrjdr]^, 
and  He  is  0eo?  aX7]6iv6<; :  but  very  different  attri- 
butes and  prerogatives  are  ascribed  to  Him  by  the 
one  epithet,  and  by  the  other.  God  is  dXrjdy]?  (John 
iii.  33  ;  Eom.  iii.  4 ;  ==  verax),  inasmuch  as  He  can- 
not lie,  as  He  is  d'\jr6vBij<;  (Tit.  i.  2),  the  truth-speak- 
ing, and  the  truth-loving  God  (cf.  Euripides,  Io?i, 
155^1:).  But  He  is  d\7]6iv6^  (1  Thess.  i.  9;  Jolmxvii. 
3  ;  =  verus),  very  God,  as  distinguished  from  idols, 
and  all  other  false  gods,  the  dreams  of  the  diseased 
fancy  of  man,  having  no  substantial  existence  in 
the  actual  world  of  realities.  "The  adjectives  in 
-L-vo<;  express  the  material  out  of  which  anything  is 


NEW   TESTAIVIENT.  4:9 

made,  or  rather  they  imply  a  mixed  relation,  of 
quality  and  origin,  to  the  object  denoted  by  the  sub- 
stantive from  which  they  are  derived.  Thus  ^vX-i- 
vo^  means  'of  wood,'  'wooden;'  [oo-rpa/c-t-i/o?,  'of 
earth,'  '  earthen ; '  vuX-l-vo^,  '  of  glass,'  '  glassy ; '] 
and  a\7]d-i,-v6<;  signifies  '  genuine,'  made  up  of  that 
which  is  true  [that  which  in  chemical  language  has 
truth  for  its  stuff  and  base].  This  last  adjective  is 
particularly  applied  to  express  that  which  is  all  that 
it  pretends  to  be  ;  for  instance  pure  gold  as  opposed 
to  adulterated  metal."  (Donaldson,  JVevj  Cratylus, 
p.  426.) 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  last  remark  that  it  does 
not  of  necessity  follow,  that  whatever  may  be  con- 
trasted with  the  akr]dLv6^^  should  thereby  be  con- 
cluded to  have  no  substantial  existence,  to  be  alto- 
gether false  and  fraudulent.  Inferior  and  subordi- 
nate realizations,  partial  and  imperfect  anticipations, 
of  the  truth,  may  be  set  over  against  the  truth  in 
its  highest  form,  in  its  ripest  and  completest  devel- 
oi)ment ;  and  then  to  this  last  alone  the  title  oXtjOc- 
1/6?  Avill  be  vouchsafed.  Thus  Xenophon  affirms  of 
Cyrus  {Anah.  i.  9.  IT),  that  he  commanded  aXrjdcvop 
a-rpdrev/jia,  an  army  indeed,  an  army  deserving  the 
name ;  but  would  not  have  altogether  refused  this 
name  of  '  army '  to  inferior  hosts  ;  and  Plato  (^'m. 
25  a)y  calling  the  sea  beyond  the  Straits  of  Hercu 
Ics,  TreXayo?  ovr(o<;,  d\7]6Lvb^  iruvros,  would  say  that 
3 


50  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

it  alone  realized  to  the  full  the  idea  of  the  great 
ocean  deep ;  of.  Pol.  i.  347  d:  6  rat  ovti  oXtjOlvo^; 
dpxcov.  We  should  frequently  miss  the  exact  force 
of  the  word,  we  should,  indeed,  find  ourselves  en- 
tangled in  many  and  serious  embarrassments,  if  we 
understood  it  necessarily  as  the  true  opposed  to  the 
false.  Bather  it  is  very  often  the  substantial  as 
opposed  to  the  shadowy  and  outlinear ;  as  Origen 
(m  Joan.  torn.  ii.  §  4)  has  well  expressed  it :  a\7]6iv6<i, 
7r/309  avTLhiaaTo\r]v  aKta^  koX  tvitov  kol  gIkovo^. 
Thus,  at  Heb.  viii.  2,  mention  is  made  of  the  o-Krjvri 
aX7]6ivrj  into  which  our  great  High  Priest  entered  ; 
which,  of  course,  does  not  imply  that  the  tabernacle 
in  the  wilderness  was  not  also  most  truly  pitched 
at  God's  bidding,  and  according  to  the  pattern 
which  he  had  shown;  but  only  that  it,  and  all 
things  in  it,  were  weak  earthly  copies  of  things 
which  had  a  real  and  glorious  existence  in  heaven 
(avTiTvira  twp  a\r]div6}v)  ;  the  passing  of  the  Jewish 
High  Priest  into  the  Holy  of  Holies,  with  all  else 
pertaining  to  the  worldly  sanctuary,  being  but  the 
cKia  Tcov  fJieWovTwv  ayaOSiv^  while  the  aSifMa^  the 
filling  up  of  these  outlines,  was  of  and  by  Christ 
(Col.  ii.  17).^ 

*This  R  Spanheim  {Duh.  Evang.  106)  has  well  put:  'AKrjeeia 
in  Scriptura,  Sacr&,  interdum  sumitur  ethice,  et  opponitur  falsitati 
et  mendacio ;  interdum  mystice,  et  opponitur  typis  et  umbris,  ut 
iiKwy  illis  respondens,  quae  Veritas  alio  modo  etiam  o-w/uo  vocatur  a 


NEW    TESTA^IENT.  51 

"Wlien  in  like  manner  it  is  said,  "  The  law  was 
given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ "  (John  i.  17),  it  is  plain  that  the  antithesis 
cannot  lie  between  the  false  and  the  true,  but  only 
between  the  imperfect  and  the  perfect,  the  shadowy 
and  the  substantial.  So  too  the  Eternal  Word  is 
declared  to  be  to  ^w?  to  aKr\Qivbv  (John  i.  9),  not 
denying  thereby  that  the  Baptist  was  also  "  a  burn- 
ing and  a  shining  light "  (John  v.  35),  or  that  the 
faithful  are  "lights  in  the  w^orld"  (Phil.  ii.  15; 
Matt.  Y.  li),  but  only  claiming  for  a  Greater  than 
all  to  be  "  the  Light  w^hich  lighteth  every  man  that 
cometh  into  the  world."  ^  Christ  declares  Himself 
o  a/3T09  o  oXtiOlvos  (John  vi.  32),  not  that  the  bread 
which  Moses  gave  was  not  also  "  bread  of  heaven  " 
(Ps.  cv.  40),  but  it  was  such  only  in  a  secondary 
inferior  degree  ;  it  was  not  food  in  the  highest  sense, 

Spiritu  S.  opposita  t^  (TKia.     Cf.  Deyling,  Obss.  Sac.  vol.  iii.  p,  31Y ; 
vol.  iv.  p.  548. 

^  Lampe  {in  loc.) :  Innnitur  ergo  hie  oppositio  turn  luminarium 
naturalium,  qualia  fuere  lux  creationis,  lux  Israelitarum  in  -^gyp- 
to,  lux  columnse  in  deserto,  lux  gemmarum  in  peetorali,  quae  non 
nisi  umbrae  fuere  hxijus  verae  lucis ;  turn  eorum,  qui  falso  se  esse 
lumen  hominum  gloriantur,  quales  sigillatim  fuere  Sol  et  Luna 
Ecclesiae  Judaicae,  qui  cum  ortu  hujus  Lucis  obscurandi,  Joel,  ii. 
31 ;  tum  denique  verorum  qiioque  luminarium,  sed  in  minore  gra- 
du,  quaeque  omne  suum  lumen  ab  hoc  Lumine  mutuantur,  qualia 
sunt  omnes  Sancti,  Doctores,  Angeli  lucis,  ipse  denique  Joannes 
Baptista. 


52  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

inasmucli  as  it  did  not  nourish  np  unto  eternal  life 
those  that  ate  it  (John  vi.  49).  He  was  97  a/xTreXo? 
97  aXrjOivr]  (John  XV.  1),  not  thereby  denying  that 
Israel  also  was  God's  vine,  which  we  know  it  was 
(Ps.  Ixxx.  8 ;  Jer.  ii.  21),  but  only  affirming  that 
none  but  He  realized  this  name,  and  all  that  it  im- 
plied, to  the  full  (Hos.  X.  1 ;  Deut.  xxxii.  32).^  It 
would  be  easy  to  follow  this  up  further ;  but  these 
examples,  which  the  thoughtful  student  will  observe 
are  drawn  chiefly  from  St.  John,  may  suffice.  The 
fact  that  in  his  writings  the  word  akrjdivo^  is  used 
two  and  twenty  times  as  against  five  times  in  all 
the  rest  of  the  New  Testament,  is  one  which  he  will 
scarcely  dismiss  without  a  thought. 

To  sum  up  then,  as  briefly  as  jDossible,  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  two  words,  we  may  affirm  of 
the  aX.r)9i]<;j  that  he  fulfils  the  promise  of  his  lips, 
but  the  aXrjOivo^  the  wider  promise  of  his  name. 
Whatever  that  name  imports,  taken  in  its  highest, 
deepest,  widest  sense,  that  he  realizes  to  the  full. 

^  Lampe:  Christus  est  Vitis  vera, .  .  .  et  quft.  talis  prceponi,  quia 
et  opponi,  potest  omnibus  aliis  qui  etiam  sub  hoc  symbol©  in  scrip- 
tis  proplieticis  pinguntur. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  53 


§  ix. — depcLTTCov^  BovXo<;,  hidKOVo<;^  v7rt]peT7j<;. 

The  only  passage  in  the  'New  Testament  in 
which  OepcLTTcov  occurs  is  Heb.  iii.  5  :  "  And  Moses 
verily  was  faithful  in  all  his  house,  as  a  servant " 
(ct>9  Oepd-rrcov).  The  alhision  here  to  JSTumb.  xii.  7  is 
manifest ;  at  which  j)lace  the  Septuagint  has  given 
Oepdirwv  as  its  rendering  of  'la:?  ;  which  yet  is  not 
its  constant  rule  ;  for  it  has  very  frequently  render- 
ed it  not  by  depdircov,  but  by  SoOXo?.  Out  of  this 
latter  rendering,  no  doubt,  we  have,  at  Eev.  xv.  3, 
the  phrase,  Mcovarj^;  6  Bov\o<;  rod  ©eov.  From  the 
fact  that  the  Septuagint  translates  the  same  Hebrew 
word,  now  by  SoOXo^,  now  by  depdircov,  it  will  not 
follow  that  there  is  no  diflerence  between  the  words ; 
nor  yet  that  there  may  not  be  occasions  when  the 
one  would  be  far  more  appropriately  employed  than 
the  other ;  but  only  that  there  are  other  occasions 
which  do  not  require  the  bringing  out  into  promi- 
nence of  that  which  constitutes  the  difference  be- 
tween them.  And  such  real  difference  there  is. 
The  So{}\o9  (opposed  to  eXevOepo?,  Rev.  xiii.  16  ;  xix. 
18  ;  Plato,  Gorg.  502  d)  is  one  in  a  permanent  rela- 
tion of  servitude  to  another,  and  that,  altogether 
apart  from  any  ministration  to  that  other  at  the 
present  moment  rendered  ;  but  the  depdircov  is  the 


54:  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

performer  of  present  services  without  respect  to 
the  fact  whether  as  a  freeman  or  a  slave  he  renders 
them  ;  and  thus,  as  will  naturally  follow,  there  goes 
constantly  with  the  word  the  sense  of  one  whose 
services  are  tenderer,  nobler,  freer  than  those  of 
the  SouXo<i.  In  the  verb  Oepaireveiv  ('  curare  '),  as 
distinguished  from  hovkeveiv^  and  connected  with 
'  faveo,'  '  foveo,'  OdXircti^  the  nobler  and  more  careful 
character  of  the  service  comes  still  more  strongly 
out.  It  may  be  used  of  the  physician's  watchful 
tendance  of  the  sick,  man's  service  of  God,  and  is 
beautifully  applied  by  Xenophon  {Mem.  iv.  3.  9)  to 
the  care  w^hich  the  gods  have  of  men.  Thus  Achil- 
les, in  Homer,  styles  Patroclus  his  Oepdircov  (II.  xvi. 
24:4),  one  whose  service  was  not  constrained,  but 
the  officious  ministration  of  love.  Merioneus  is 
Oepdirav  to  Idomeneus  (xxiii.  113),  and  all  the 
Greeks  are  Oepdirovres  "Aprjos  (ii.  110  and  often). 
So  too  in  Plato  {Sym]?.  203  c)  Eros  is  styled  the 
cLKoXovOo^  KoX  Oepdirwy  of  Aphrodite.  With  all 
which  agrees  the  definition  of  Hesychius  :  ol  iv 
Bevripa  rd^ec  <j)iXoi, ;  of  Ammonius  :  ol  vTrorerayiuii- 
voi  (plXoL ;  and  of  Eustathius :  tcSi'  (f)iXwv  ol  hpaan- 
Kcorepoc. 

It  will  be  seen  then  that  the  author  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  calling  Moses  a  Oepdirwv  in 
the  house  of  God  (iii.  5),  implies  that  he  occupied  a 
more  confidential  position,  that  a  freer  service,  a 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  55 

higher  dignity  was  his,  than  that  merely  of  a  Bov\o<!, 
approaching  more  closely  to  that  of  an  oIkov6/jlo<;  in 
God's  house ;  and  referring  to  ISTumb.  xii.  6 — 8,  we 
find,  confirming  this  view,  that  a  special  dignity  is 
there  ascribed  to  Moses,  lifting  him  above  other 
SovXot  of  God.  It  would  have  been  well  if  in  our 
Version  it  had  been  in  some  way  sought  to  indicate 
the  exceptional  and  more  honourable  title  here 
given  to  him  who  "  was  faithful  in  all  God's  house." 
The  Yulgate  has  very  well  rendered  Oepdircov  by 
'  famulus,'  (so  Cicero, '  famulaa  Idsese  matris ') ;  Tyn- 
dal  and  Cranmer  by  '  minister,'  which  perhaps  is 
as  good  a  word  as  in  English  could  have  been 
found. 

Neither  ought  the  distinction  between  Sidfcovo<i 
and  Bov\o<;  to  be  lost  sight  of  and  let  go  in  the  ren- 
dering of  the  iNew  Testament.  There  is  no  diffi- 
culty in  preserving  it.  AcaKovo^,  not  from  Sia  and 
kovk;,  one  who  in  his  speed  runs  through  the  dust 
—  a  mere  fanciful  derivation,  and  forbiddeA  by  the 
cjuantity  of  StdKovo<; — is  j)robably  from  the  same 
root  as  has  given  us  Scwkq),  '  to  hasten,'  or  '  j^ursue.' 
The  difference  between  Bi,dKovo<;  on  one  side,  and 
Bov\o(i  and  depdiTODv  on  the  other,  is  that  BtaKovos 
represents  the  servant  in  his  activity  for  the  worh 
{SiaKoveLv  Tt,  Eph.  iii.  7 ;  Col.  i.  23 ;  2  Cor.  iii.  6), 
not  in  his  relation  either  servile,  as  that  of  the  SoO- 
Xo9,  or  more  voluntary,  as  in  the  case  of  the  depd- 


56  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

TTcoy,  to  a  person.  The  attendants  at  a  feast,  and 
these  with  no  respect  to  their  condition  as  one  of 
freedom  or  servitude,  are  as  such  BiaKovoL  (John  ii. 
5  ;  Matt.  xxii.  13).  What  has  just  been  said  of  the 
importance  of  maintaining  the  distinction  between 
BovXo^  and  hiaKovo^  may  be  illustrated  from  the 
parable  of  the  Marriage  Supper  (Matt.  xxii.  2 — 14). 
"With  us  the  king's  "  servants  "  bring  in  the  invited 
guests  (ver.  3,  4,  8,  10),  and  his  "  servants  "  are  bid- 
den to  cast  out  him  that  had  not  on  a  wedding  gar- 
ment (ver.  13) :  but  in  the  Greek,  those,  the  bring- 
ere-in  of  the  guests  are  hovXoi ;  these,  the  fulfillers 
of  the  king's  sentence,  are  ScaKovot  —  this  distinction 
being  a  most  real  one,  and  belonging  to  the  essen- 
tials of  the  parable ;  the  hovXoL  being  men,  the  am- 
bassadors of  Christ  who  invite  their  brethren  into 
His  kingdom  now,  the  huiKovoL  the  angels,  who  in 
all  the  judgment  acts  at  the  end  of  the  world  ever- 
more appear  as  the  executors  of  the  Lord's  will. 
However  the  point  of  the  parable  may  not  turn 
on  the  distinction  between  them,  yet  they  may  no 
more  be  confounded  than  the  BovXoc  and  OepLcrrai 
of  Matt.  xiii.  27,  30 ;  cf.  Luke  xix.  24. 

'TTTTjpeTrj^j  which  only  remains  to  be  considered, 
is  a  word  drawn  originally  from  military  matters  ; 
he  is  the  rower  (from  ipeaaco,  '  remigo '),  as  distin- 
guished from  the  soldier  on  board  a  war-galley; 
then  the  performer  of  any  strong  and  hard  labour ; 


NEW    TESTAilENT.  57 

then  the  subordinate  official  that  waits  to  accomplish 
the  commands  of  his  superior,  as  the  orderly  that 
attends  a  commander  in  war  (Xenophon,  Cyroj?.  vi. 
2.  13).  In  this  sense,  as  a  minister  to  perform  cer- 
tain defined  functions  for  Paul  and  Barnabas,  Mark 
was  their  virrfpeTrj^  (Acts  xiii.  5) ;  and  in  this  official 
sense  of  lictor,  apparitor,  and  the  like,  we  find  the 
word  constantly,  indeed  predominantly  used  in  the 
I^ew  Testament  (Matt.  v.  25;  Luke  iv.  20;  John 
vii.  32  ;  xviii.  18  ;  Acts  v.  22).  The  mention  of  lotJi 
■SovXoL  and  virrjpeTaL  together  (John  xviii.  18)  would 
be  alone  sufficient  to  indicate  that  a  difi'erence  is 
there  observed  between  them ;  and  from  this  differ 
ence  it  will  follow  that  he  who  struck  the  Lord  on 
the  face  (John  xviii.  32)  could  not  be,  as  some  have 
supposed,  the  same  whose  ear  He  had  but  just 
healed  (Luke  xxii.  51),  seeing  that  this  last  was  a 
Bov\o<;,  that  profane  striker  an  v7r7]p6Tr}<;  of  the  High 
Priest.  The  meanings  of  SiaKovo?  and  vTTTjperT)^  are 
much  more  nearly  allied ;  they  do  in  fact  continu- 
ally run  into  one  another,  and  there  are  a  multitude 
of  occasions  on  which  they  might  be  promiscuously 
used ;  the  more  official  character  of  the  v7rr}p6T7]<;  is 
the  point  in  which  the  distinction  between  them 
resides. 


58  SYITONTMS   OF   THE 


§  X. — Betkla,  <f)6^o<;,  evkd^eia. 

Of  these  three  words,  the  first  is  used  always  in 
a  bad  sense ;  the  second  is  a  middle  term,  capable 
of  a  good  interpretation,  capable  of  an  evil,  and 
lying  j)retty  evenly  between  the  two ;  the  third  is 
quite  predominantly  used  in  a  good  sense,  though 
it  too  has  not  altogether  escaped  being  employed  in 
an  evil. 

Aeikla,  the  Latin  '  timor,'  having  OpaavT7)<;,  or 

*  temerity,'  for  its  opposite  (Plato,  Tim.  87  a),  is  our 

*  cowardice.'  It  occurs  only  once  in  the  Kew  Tes- 
tament, 2  Tim.  i.  7 ;  but  SecXidco,  John  xiv.  27 ;  and 
8eiA.69,  Matt.  viii.  26  ;  Mark  iv.  40 ;  Eev.  xxi.  8.  In 
this  last  passage  the  BetXoL  beyond  doubt  are  those 
who  in  time  of  persecution  have,  out  of  fear  of  what 
they  should  suffer,  denied  the  faith.  It  is  joined  to 
dvavhpela  (Plato,  PhoBclr.  254  c ;  Legg.  859  h) ;  to 
-y^rv^poTv^  (Plutarch,  Fab.  Max.  17) ;  to  eKkvcn^  (2 
Mace.  iii.  24) ;  is  ascribed  by  Josephus  to  the  spies 
who  brought  an  ill  report  of  the  Promised  Land 
{A7itt.  iii.  15.  1) ;  being  constantly  set  over  against 
dvSpeia,  as  SetXo?  over  against  dvSpelo^ :  as  for  exam- 
ple, in  the  long  discussion  on  valour  and  cowardice 
in  Plato's  Protagoras^  360  d;  and  see  the  lively 
description  of  the  leCkb^  in  the  Characters  (29)  of 


KEW    TESTAMENT.  59 

Theophrastus.  Aeckia  does  not  of  course  itself  al- 
low that  it  is  such,  but  would  shelter  itself  under 
the  more  honourable  title  of  evXd^eca  (Philo,  De 
Fortit.  739) ;  pleads  for  itself  that  it  is  aa^aXua 
(Plutarch,  Anim.  an  Corp.  Ajpp.  Pej.  3 ;  Philo,  Quod 
Let.  Pot,  Insid.  11). 

^6(3o^^  answering  to  the  Latin  term  '  metus,'  is  a 
middle  term,  and  as  such  it  is  used  in  the  JS'ew  Tes- 
tament sometimes  in  a  bad  sense,  but  oftener  in  a 
good.  Thus  in  a  bad  sense,  Rom.  viii.  15  ;  1  John 
iv.  18 ;  c£  Wisd.  of  Sol.  xvii.  11 ;  but  in  a  good. 
Acts  ix.  31 ;  Rom.  iii.  18 ;  Eph.  vi.  5  ;  1  Pet.  i.  17. 
^6Po<;  being  thus  fiecrov,  Plato,  in  the  passage  from 
the  Protagoras  referred  to  above,  adds  alaxpo'i  to 
it,  as  often  as  he  would  indicate  the  timidity  which 
misbecomes  a  man. 

Ev\d/3€ta,  which  only  occurs  twice  in  the  N'ew 
Testament  (Heb.  v.  7 ;  xii.  28),  and  on  each  occa- 
sion signifies  piety  contemplated  on  the  side  in 
which  it  is  a  fear  of  God,  is  of  course  from  ev  Tul/jl- 
PdveaOaL^  the  image  underlying  the  word  being  that 
of  the  careful  taking  hold,  the  cautious  handling,  of 
some  precious  yet  delicate  vessel,  which  with  ruder 
or  less  anxious  handling  might  easily  be  broken. 
But  such  a  careftJness  and  cautiousness  in  the  eon- 
ducting  of  affairs,  springing  as  no  doubt  in  part  it 
does  from  a  fear  of  miscarriage,  easily  lies  open  to 
the  charge  of  timidity.     Thus  Demosthenes  claims 


60  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

for  himself  that  he  was  only  ev\apr)<;^  where  his 
enemies  charged  him  with  being  heCkos  and  aTok^io^, 
It  is  not  wonderful  then  that  fear  should  have  come 
to  be  regarded  as  an  essential  element  of  euXaySeta, 
though  for  the  most  part  no  dishonourable  fear,  but 
such  as  a  wise  and  good  man  might  not  be  ashamed 
to  entertain.  Cicero,  Tusc.  iv.  6 :  Declinatio  [a 
malis]  si  cum  ratione  fiet,  cautio  appelletur,  eaque 
intelligatur  in  solo  esse  sapiente ;  quae  autem  sine 
ratione  et  cum  examinatione  humili  atque  fracta, 
nominetur  tnetus.  He  has  ^^I'obably  the  definition 
of  the  Stoics  in  his  eyes.  These,  while  they  disal- 
lowed cj)6l3o?  as  a  irdOo^,  admitted  evXd/Seta  into  the 
circle  of  virtues.  Diogenes  Laertius,  vii.  1.  116 : 
rrjv  Be  evXa/Secav  [ivavriav  (paalv  elvai]  rw  (^o^m^ 
ovaav  evXoyov  e/CKXiaiv  ^o^7]6)]a'6a9aL  fxlv  yap  rov 
aocpbv  ovBa/jL(jo<i,  evXa^rjOrja-ea-Qau  Si.  It  is  joined  to 
TTpovoLa  by  Plutarch,  Ifarc.  9  ;  and  set  over  against 
Opdao^  by  Demosthenes,  51Y. 


§  xi. — KaKLa,  TTOVTjpia,  KaKorjOeia. 

We  are  probably  at  first  inclined  to  regard  KaKia 
in  the  ITew  Testament  as  expressing  the  whole 
complex  of  moral  evil,  as  vice  in  general ;  and  in 
this  latitude  no  doubt  it  is  often  used.    Thus,  aperal 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  61 

KUL  KaKiai  are  '  virtues  and  vices '  (Aristotle,  Hhet. 
ii.  12 ;  Platarcli,  Conj.  Pr(BC.  25,  and  continually) ; 
while  Cicero  {Tusc.  iv.  15)  refuses  to  translate  KaKla 
by  '  malitia,'  choosing  rather  to  coin  '  vitiositas '  for 
the  occasion,  giving  this  as  his  reason :  Xam  mali- 
tia certi  cujusdani  vitii  nomen  est,  vitiositas  om- 
nium ;  showing  plainly  that  in  his  eye  KaKia  was 
the  name  not  of  one  ^dce,  but  of  all.  Yet  a  little 
consideration  of  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs  in 
the  JSTew  Testament,  must  make  evident  that  it  is 
not  there  so  used  ;  for  then  we  should  not  find  it  as 
one  in  a  long  catalogue  of  sins  (Rom.  i.  29  ;  Col.  iii. 
8) ;  seeing  that  in  it  alone  the  others  would  all  have 
been  contained.  We  must  therefore  seek  for  it  a 
more  special  meaning,  and  bringing  it  into  compari- 
son with  TTovrjplay  we  shall  not  err  in  saying  that 
KUKia  is  more  the  evil  habit  of  mind,  irovi^pCa  rather 
the  outcoming  of  the  same.  Thus  Calvin  says  of 
KaKLa  (Eph.  iv.  32) :  Significat  hoc  verbo  [Aposto- 
lus] animi  jpravitatem  quae  humanitati  et  sequitati 
est  opposite,  et  malignitas  vulgo  nuncupatur.  Our 
English  translators,  rendering  KaKia  so  often  by 
<  malice '  (Eph.  iv.  32  ;  1  Cor.  v.  8  ;  xiv.  20 ;  1 
Pet.  ii.  1),  show  that  they  regarded  it  in  the  same 
light. 

But  the  7rov7)p6<;  is,  as  Hesychius  calls  him,  6 
BpaaTLKo^  Tov  KaKov,  the  active  worker  out  of  evil ; 
the  German  '  Bosewicht,'  or  as  Beza  {Annott.  in 


62  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

Matt.  V.  37)  has  drawn  the  distinction :  Significat 
TTovrjpo^  aliqnid  amplius  quam  Ara/co?,  nempe  eum 
qui  sit  in  omni  scelere  exercitatus,  et  ad  injuriam 
cuivis  inferendam  totus  comparatus.  He  is,  accord- 
ing to  the  derivation  of  the  word,  6  'irape')(cc)v  ttovov^, 
or  one  that,  as  we  say,  ''  pnts  others  to  tronble ; " 
and  TTovrjpLa  is  the  cnpiditas  nocendi ;  or  as  Jeremy- 
Taylor  explains  it :  '*  aptness  to  do  shrewd  turns, 
to  delight  in  mischiefs  and  tragedies ;  a  loving  to 
tronble  our  neighbour  and  to  do  him  ill  offices; 
crossness,  perverseness,  and  j)eevishness  of  action 
in  our  intercourse"  {Doctrine  and  Practice  of 
Rejpentance^  iv.  1).  If  the  KaK6<i  is  opposed  to 
the  ayaOo'^,  and  the  (j)av\o<;  to  the  KokoKayado?, 
the  TTovTjpo';  would  find  his  exact  contrast  in  the 
')(p7]aT6(i. 

While  these  words,  KaKia  and  Trovrjpla,  occur 
several  times  in  the  l^ew  Testament,  KaKorjOeia 
ocurs  there  but  once,  namely,  in  St.  Paul's  long 
and  fearful  enumeration  of  the  wickednesses  with 
which  the  Gentile  world  was  filled  (Kom.  i.  29), 
and  never  in  the  Septuagint.  We  have  translated 
it  '  malignity.'  When,  however,  we  take  it  in  this 
wider  meaning,  it  is  very  difficult  to  assign  to  it  any 
district  which  has  not  been  already  j)reoccupied 
either  by  KaKia  or  irovrjpLa.  Even  supposing  the 
exact  limits  w^hich  separate  these  two  words  have 
not  been  perfectly  traced,  yet  between  them  they 


NEW    TESTAilENT.  63 

will  have  left  little  or  no  room  unappropriated 
for  'malignity'  to  occupy  as  peculiarly  its  own.  It 
would  therefore  seem  preferable  to  understand  Ka- 
Koi-jOeia  here  in  the  more  restricted  meaning  which 
it  sometimes  possesses.  The  Geneva  version  has 
done  so,  which  has  rendered  it  by  a  periphrasis, 
"  taking  all  things  in  the  evil  part ; "  which  is  ex- 
actly the  definition  that  Aristotle,  of  whose  ethical 
terminology  the  word  forms  a  part,  gives  {Bhet.  ii. 
13)  :  ear  I  yap  KaKorjOeia  to  iirl  to  ^(elpov  viroXaf^^d- 
veiv  airavTa,  or,  as  Jeremy  Taylor  calls  it,  "a  base- 
ness of  nature  by  which  we  take  things  by  the 
wrong  handle,  and  expound  things  always  in  the 
worst  sense  ; "  the  '  malignitas  interpretantium ' 
(Pliny,  IJp.  V.  7) ;  ^  being  exactly  opposed  to  what 
Seneca  {De  Ird,  ii.  24)  has  so  beautifully  called  the 
'  benigna  rerum  sestimatio.'  For  precisely  this  use 
of  KaKorj0cD<;  see  Josephus,  A7itt.  vii.  6. 1 ;  cf.  2  Sam. 
X.  3.  This  giving  to  all  words  and  actions  of  others 
tlieir  most  unfavourable  interpretation  Aristotle 
marks  as  one  of  the  vices  of  the  old,  in  that  mourn- 
ful, yet  for  the  Christian  most  instructive,  passage, 
which  has  been  referred  to  just  now ;  they  are 
KaKor)6€L<i  and  KaxvTroTTToi.  We  shall  scarcely  err 
then,  taking  KUKoijOeta,  at  Eom.  i.  29,  in  this  nar- 

^  How  striking,  by  the  way,  this  use  of  'interpreter,'  as  'to 
interpret  awry,'  in  Tacitus  (himself  probably  not  wholly  untouched 
with  the  vice),  Pliny,  and  the  other  writers  of  their  age. 


64  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

rower  meaning ;  the  position  which  it  occupies  in 
St.  Paul's  list  of  sins  entirely  justifies  us  in  regard- 
ing it  as  that  peculiar  form  of  evil  which  manifests 
itself  in  a  malignant  interjDretation  of  the  actions 
of  others,  an  attributing  of  them  all  to  the  worst 
motive. 

Nor  should  we  take  leave  of  the  word  without 
noticing  the  deep  psychological  truth  attested  in. 
this  its  secondary  employment  —  this  truth,  I  mean; 
that  the  evil  which  we  find  in  ourselves  causes  us 
to  suspect  and  believe  evil  in  others.  The  kuko- 
tjOt]^,  according  to  tlie  original  constitution  of  the 
word,  is  he  that  is  himself  of  an  evil  ^^09  or  moral 
habit:  but  such  an  one  projects  himself,  and  the 
motives  which  actuate  him,  into  others,  sees  him- 
self in  them  ;  and  as  Love  on  the  one  side,  in  those 
glorious  words  of  Schiller, 

"  deliglitedly  believes 
Divinities,  being  itself  divine,'" 

SO  that  wdiich  is  itself  thoroughly  evil,  finds  it  al- 
most impossible  to  believe  anything  but  evil  in 
others.  The  reader  of  the  J^epuhlic  of  Plato  will 
remember  that  remarkable  j)assage  (iii.  409  a,  J), 
in  which  Socrates,  showing  how  it  is  good  for  phy- 
sicians to  have  had.  chiefly  to  do  with  the  sick,  but 
not  for  teachers  and  rulers  with  bad  men,  accounts 
for  the  fact  that  the  yet  nncorrupted  young  men 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  65 

are  €vr]96L<;,  as  over  against  tlie  KaKorjOeu^^  on  this 
ground,  namely,  are  ovk,  e-)(pvre<i  iv  eavroU  irapa- 
Sely/jLara  ofioLoiradr)  rots  7rovrjpo2<;. 


§  xii. — ayaTrdco.  (f)L\ico. 

We  have  not,  I  believe,  in  any  case  attempted 
to  discriminate  between  these  two  words  in  our 
English  Version.  It  would  not  have  been  easy, 
perhaps  not  possible  to  have  done  it ;  and  yet  there 
is  often  a  difference  between  them,  one  very  well 
worthy  to  have  been  noted,  if  this  had  lain  within 
the  compass  of  our  language ;  and  which  makes 
the  two  words  to  stand  very  much  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  one  another  as  '  diligo '  and  '  amo '  in  the 
Latin.  It  may  be  worth  our  while  to  realize  to 
ourselves  the  exact  distinction  between  these  two 
Latin  words,  as  it  will  help  us  much  to  understand 
that  which  exists  between  those  which  are  the  more 
immediate  object  of  our  inquiry.  We  have  here 
abundant  help  from  Cicero,  who  often  sets  the 
words  in  a  certain  instructive  antithesis  one  to  the 
f  6ther.  Thus,  writing  to  one  friend  of  the  affection 
in  which  he  holds  another  (^.  Mim.  xiii.  47) :  Ut 
scires  ilium  a  me  non  diligi  solum,  verum  etiam 
amari ;  and  again  {Ad  Brut.  1) :  L.  Clodius  valde 


66  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

me  diligit^  vel,  iit  i/i^arLKcoTepov  dicam,  valde  me 
amat.  From  these  and  various  other  passages  to 
the  same  effect  (there  is  an  ample  collection  of  them 
in  Doderlein's  Latein.  Synonyme^  vol.  iv.  p.  98  sq.), 
we  might  conclude  that  '  amare,'  which  corresponds 
to  (ptXelv,  is  stronger  than  '  diligere,'  which,  as  we 
shall  see,  corresponds  to  ayaTrdv :  and  this  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  is  most  true  ;  yet  it  is  not  a  greater 
strength  and  intensity  in  the  first  word  than  in  the 
second  which  accounts  for  these  and  for  a  multitude 
of  similar  employments  of  them.  Ernesti  has  suc- 
cessfully seized  the  law  of  their  several  uses,  when 
he  says :  Diligere  magis  ad  judicium,  amare  vero 
ad  intimum  animi  sensum  j)ertinet.  So  that,  in 
fact,  Cicero  in  the  passage  first  quoted  is  saying, — 
"  I  do  not  esteem  the  man  merely,  but  I  love  him  ; 
there  is  something  of  the  passionate  warmth  of  af- 
fection in  the  feeling  with  which  I  regard  him." 

But  from  this  it  will  follow,  that  while  friena 
may  desire  rather  '  amari '  than  '  diligi '  by  his 
friend,  yet  there  are  asj^ects  in  which  the  '  diligi ' 
is  a  higher  thing  than  the  '  amari,'  the  ajaTradOai 
than  the  (fnXelaOai.  The  first  expresses  a  more  rea- 
soning attachment,  of  choice  and  selection  (diligere  f^t 
=  deligere),  from  seeing  in  the  object  upon  whom  J  ""*^ 
it  is  bestowed  that  which  is  worthy  of  regard ;  or 
else  from  a  sense  that  such  was  fit  and  due  toward 
the  person  so  regarded,  as  being  a  benefactor,  or 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  67 

the  like  ;  wliile  the  second,  without  being  necessa- 
rily an  unreasoning  attachment,  does  yet  oftentimes 
give  less  account  of  itself  to  itself ;  is  more  instinct- 
ive, is  more  of  the  feelings,  implies  more  passion ; 
thus  Dion  Cass.  44 :  i(f)L\r}aaTe  avrov  co?  Trarepa^  koX 
riyairrjaare  &>?  evepyirrjv.  From  this  last  fact  it  fol- 
lows, that  when  the  (piXelv  is  attributed  to  a  person 
of  one  sex  in  regard  to  one  of  another,  it  generally 
implies  the  passion  of  love,  and  is  seldom  employed, 
but  rather  dyaTrav,  where  such  is  not  intended. 
Take  as  an  example  of  this  the  use  of  the  two 
words  in  John  xi.  The  sisters  of  Bethany  send  to 
Jesus  to  announce  that  His  friend  Lazarus  is  sick 
(ver.  3) :  no  misunderstanding  is  here  possible,  and 
the  words  therefore  run  thus:  ov  (pcXec^;  aaOevel: 
cf  ver.  36.  But  where  the  Saviour's  affection  to 
the  sisters  themselves  is  recorded,  St.  John  at  once 
changes  the  word,  which,  to  unchaste  ears  at  least, 
might  not  have  sounded  so  well,  and  instead  of  <f)L- 
Xelv,  expresses  himself  thus:  yydwa  Be  6  'Irjaov^ 
rrjv  MdpOav,  k.  t.  X.  (ver.  5).  We  have  an  instruct- 
ive example  of  the  like  variation  between  the  two 
words,  and  out  of  the  same  motives,  at  Wisd.  viii. 
2,  3.  At  the  same  time  the  ^Ckdv  is  not  unusual  to 
express  the  affection  between  persons  of  different 
sexes,  and  this  where  no  passion,  no  l/jw?,  honour- 
able or  dishonourable,  is  intended,  if  the  case  be 
one  where  nearness  of  blood  at  once  and  of  itself 


68  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

precludes  the  supposition  of  such,  as  that  of  a 
brother  to  a  sister.  See,  for  instance,  Xenophon, 
Mem.  ii.  7,  9,  11,  a  very  useful  passage  in  respect 
of  the  relation  in  which  the  two  w^ords  stand  to  one 
another,  and  which  shows  us  how  the  notions  of 
respect  and  reverence  are  continually  implied  in 
the  a^yairdv,  which,  though  of  course  not  excluded 
by,  are  still  not  involved  in,  the  (faXelv.  Out  of  this 
which  has  been  said  it  may  be  explained,  that 
while  men  are  continually  bidden  afyairav  rbv  Oeov 
(Matt.  xxii.  37 ;  Luke  x.  27 ;  1  Cor.  viii.  3),  and 
good  men  declared  to  do  so  (Rom.  viii.  28  ;  1  Pet. 
i.  8 ;  1  John  iv.  21),  the  (piXelp  rov  Qeov  is  com- 
manded to  them  never.  The  Father,  indeed,  both 
ayaira  rbv  Tlov  (John  iii.  35),  and  also  (f)i\el  rbv 
Tlov  (John  V.  20) ;  with  the  first  of  which  statements 
such  passages  as  Matt.  iii.  17,  with  the  second,  as 
John  i.  IS  ;  Prov.  viii.  22,  30,  may  be  brought  into 
connexion. 

In  almost  all  these  passages  of  the  I^ew  Testa- 
ment, the  Yulgate,  by  the  help  of  'diligo'  and 
*  amo,'  has  preserved  and  marked  the  distinction, 
which  in  each  case  we  have  been  compelled  to  let 
go.  It  is  especially  to  be  regretted  that  at  John 
xxi.  15 — 17  we  have  not  been  able  to  retain  it,  for 
the  alternations  there  are  singularly  instructive,  and 
if  we  would  draw  the  whole  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage forth,  must  not  escape  us  unnoticed.    On  occa- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  69 

sion  of  that  threefold  "Lovest  tliou  Me?"  which 
the  risen  Lord  addresses  to  Peter,  He  asks  him  first, 
a^aira^i  fxe ;  At  this  moment,  when  all  the  pulses 
in  the  heart  of  the  now  penitent  Apostle  are  beat- 
ing with  an  earnest  afiection  toward  his  Lord,  this 
word  on  that  Lord's  lips  sounds  too  cold  ;  not  suffi- 
ciently expressing  the  warmth  of  his  personal  affec- 
tion toward  Him.  Besides  the  question  itself,  which 
grieves  and  hurts  Peter  (ver.  17),  there  is  an  addi- 
tional pang  in  the  form  which  the  question  takes, 
sounding  as  though  it  were  intended  to  put  him  at 
a  comparative  distance  from  his  Lord,  and  to  keep 
him  there ;  or  at  least  as  not  permitting  him  to  ap- 
proach so  near  to  Him  as  fain  he  would.  He  there- 
fore in  his  answer  substitutes  for  it  the  word  of  a 
more  personal  love,  ^tXw  o-e  (ver.  15).  When 
Christ  repeats  the  question  in  the  same  words  as  at 
the  first,  Peter  in  his  reply  again  substitutes  his 
(^Ckoi  for  the  a^^aira^i  of  his  Lord  (ver.  16).  And 
now  at  length  he  has  conquered  ;  for  when 
the  third  time  his  Master  puts  the  question  to 
him.  He  does  it  with  the  word  which  Peter  feels 
will  alone  express  all  that  is  in  his  heart,  and 
instead  of  the  twice  repeated  a^yairas^  his  word 
is  (jiCkeh  now  (ver.  17).  Tlie  question,  grievous 
in  itself  to  Peter,  as  seeming  to  imply  a  doubt 
in  his  love,  is  not  any  longer  made  more  griev- 
ous   still,   by   the   peculiar    shape    which    it    as- 


70  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

sumes. '  All  tliis  subtle  and  delicate  play  of  feeling 
disappears  perforce,  where  the  variation  in  the 
words  used  is  incapable  of  being  reproduced. 

Let  me  observe  in  conclusion  that  e/jo)?,  ipav, 
ipaaT7]<^^  never  occur  in  the  l^ew  Testament,  but 
the  two  latter  occasionally  in  the  Old ;  €paarrj<; 
generally  in  a  dishonourable  sense  (Ezek.  xvi.  S3 ; 
Hos.  ii.  6) ;  yet  once  or  twice  (as  "Wisd.  viil.  2 ; 
Prov.  iv.  6)  in  a  more  honourable  meaning,  not  as 
'  amasius,'  but  '  amator.'  A  word  or  two  on  the 
causes  of  this  their  significant  absence  may  here 
find  place.  In  part,  no  doubt,  the  explanation  of 
this  absence  is,  that  these  words  by  the  corrupt  use 
of  the  world  had  become  so  steeped  in  earthly  sen- 
sual passion,  carried  such  an  atmosphere  of  this 
about  them,  that  the  truth  of  God  abstained  from 
the  defiling  contact  with  them  ;  yea,  found  out  a 
new  word  for  itself  rather  than  betake  itself  to  one 
of  these.  For  it  should  never  be  forgotten  that  the 
substantive  djaTri]  is  purely  a  Christian  word,  no 
example  of  its  use  occurring  in  any  heathen  writer 
whatever;  the  utmost  they  attained  to  here  was 
(piXavOpcoTrla  and  (pLXaBeXcpLa,  and  the  last  indeed 
never  in  any  sense  but  as  the  love  between  brethren 
in  blood.     This  is  Origen's  explanation  in  an  inter- 

*  Bengel  generally  has  the  honour  rem  acu  tetigisse  :  here  he 
has  singularly  missed  it,  and  is  wholly  astray :  ayairau,  amare,  est 
necessitudinis  et  affectus  ;  (piheTy,  diligere,  judicii. 


NEW  testa:siext.  71 

esting  discussion  on  the  subject,  Prol.  in  Cant.  vol. 
iii.  pp.  28 — 30.  But  the  reason  may  lie  deeper  than 
this.  "E/jo)?,  like  so  many  other  words,  might  have 
been  assumed  into  nobler  uses,  might  have  been 
consecrated  anew,  desj)ite  of  the  deep  degradation 
of  its  past  history ;  ^  and  there  were  beginnings  al- 
ready of  this,  in  the  Platonist  use  of  the  word,  as 
the  longing  and  yearning  love  after  that  unseen  but 
eternal  Beauty,  the  faint  vestiges  of  which  may 
here  be  everywhere  traced."  But  in  the  very  fact 
that  epw?  did  express  this  yearning  love  (in  Plato's 
exquisite  mythus,  Synvp.  203  J,  "Epo)<i  is  the  child 
of  nevLa\  lay  the  real  unfitness  of  the  word  to  set 
forth  that  Christian  love,  which  is  not  merely  the 
sense  of  need,  of  emptiness,  of  poverty,  with  the 

*  On  the  attempt  which  some  Christian  writers  have  made  to 
distinguish  between  '  amor '  and  '  dilectio '  or  '  caritas,'  see  Augus- 
tine, De  Civ.  Dei,  xiv,  Y  :  K^onnulli  arbitrantur  aliud  esse  dilectio- 
nem  sive  earitatem,  aliud  amorem.  Dicunt  enim  dilectionem  acci- 
piendam  esse  in  bono,  amorem  in  malo.  He  shows,  by  many  ex- 
amples of  'dilectio'  and  'diligo'  used  in  an  ill  sense  in  the  Latin 
Scriptures,  of  'amor'  and  'amo'  in  a  good,  the  impossibility  of 
maintaining  any  such  distinction. 

"  I  cannot  regard  as  a  step  in  this  direction  the  celebrated 
words  of  Ignatius,  Ad  Rom.  7  :  6  i/xhs  epas  ia-Taupwrai.  It  is  far 
more  consistent  with  the  genius  of  these  Ignatian  Epistles  to  take 
epws  subjectively  here;  "My  love  of  the  world  is  crucified,"  i. «. 
with  Christ,  rather  than  objectively :  "  Christ,  the  object  of  my  love, 
is  crucified." 


72  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

longing  after  fulness,  not  the  yearning  after  an  in- 
visible Beauty  ;  but  a  love  to  God  and  to  man, 
whicli  is  the  consequence  of  a  love  from  God,  al- 
ready shed  abroad  in  the  hearts  of  His  people. 
The  mere  longing  and  yearning,  which  e/jo)?  at  the 
best  would  imply,  has  given  place  since  the  Incar- 
nation to  the  love  which  is  not  in  desire  only,  but 
also  in  possession. 


§  xiii. — OdXaaaa^  TriXayo^. 

Oakaacra^  like  the  Latin  '  mare,'  is  the  sea  as 
contrasted  with  the  land  (Gen.  i.  10  ;  Matt,  xxiii. 
15  ;  Acts  iv.  24).  ne\ayo<^,  closely  allied  with 
TrXaf,  TrXaru?,  '  flat,'  is  the  level  uninterruj)ted  ex- 
panse of  open  water,  the  '  altum  mare,'  as  distin- 
guished from  those  portions  of  it  broken  by  islands, 
shut  in  by  coasts  and  headlands.^  Hippias,  in 
Plato's  Gorgias  (338  a)^  charges  the  eloquent  soph- 
ist,  Prodicus,   with    a    (pevyeiv  et9  to   TreXayo?  rcov 

^  It  need  not  be  observed  that,  adopted  into  Latin,  it  has  the 
same  meaning: 

Ut  pelagus  tenuere  rates,  nee  jam  amplius  ulla 
Occurrit  tellus,  maria  undique  et  undique  coelum. 

Virgil,  u£n.  v.  8,  9. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  73 

Xoyojv,  aiTOKpw^avra  yi]v.^  Ereadtli,  and  not  depth, 
save  as  quite  an  accessoiy  notion,  and  as  that  which 
will  probably  find  place  in  this  open  sea,  lies  in  the 
word.  Thns  the  murmuring  Isarelites,  in  Philo 
(  Vit  Mos.  35),  liken  to  a  irekayo^  the  illimitable 
sand-flats  of  the  desert ;  and  in  Herodotus  (ii.  92), 
the  I^ile  overflowing  Egypt  is  said  irekayit^eiv  to, 
irehla^  which  yet  it  does  not  cover  beyond  the  dej)th 
of  a  few  feet.  A  passage  which  illustrates  w^ell  the 
distinction  between  the  words,  occurs  in  the  Timceus 
of  Plato  (25  c/,  5),  where  the  title  of  iriXajo^  is  re- 
fused to  the  Mediterranean  sea ;  that  is  but  a  har- 
bour, with  the  narrow  entrance  between  the  Pillars 
of  Hercules  for  its  mouth ;  only  the  great  Atlantic 
Ocean  beyond  can  be  acknowledged  as  aXr)6cv6<; 
TTo^'To?,  TreXayo?  oWo)?.  And  compare  Aristotle,  De 
Mien.  3 ;  and  again,  Meteorol.  ii.  1 :  peovaa  S'  rj 
OdXarra  t^aiveraL  Kara  Ta?  arevoTrjra^;  [the  Straits 
of  Gibraltar],  clttov  Sea  7r€pLe)(^ovaav  yrjv  eh  [JUKpov 
Ik  jueyoKov  avvdyerai  ireKayo^;. 

It  might  seem,  at  first  sight,  as  if  this  distinc- 
tion did  not  hold  good  in  one  of  the  only  two  pas- 
sages where  the  word  occurs  in  the  Kew  Testament, 
namely  Matt,  xviii.  6  :  "It  were  better  for  him  that 
a  millstone  were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that 
he  vjere  drowned  in  the  dejpth  of  the  sea  "  {koX  Kara- 

^  Tliis  last  idiom  reminds  us  of  the  French  'noyerlaterre,'  ap- 
plied to  a  ship  sailing  out  of  sight  of  laud. 
4 


*J4:  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

iTovTLadfj  eV  TU)  TreXdyei  r^?  daXda-arj^).  But  tlie 
sense  of  depth,  wliicli  undoubtedly  the  passage  re- 
quires, is  here  to  be  looked  for  in  the  KarairovTia- 
6fj : — 7r6vTo<;j  which  indeed  does  not  itself  occur  in 
the  JSTew  Testament,  being  connected  with  ^ddo^, 
^evdo^,  perhaps  the  same  word  as  this  last,  and  im- 
j)lying  the  sea  in  its  perj)e7idicular  depth,  as  TreXa- 
709  {cequor  maris),  the  same  in  its  horizontal  dimen- 
sions and  extent. 


§  xiv. — aK\r]p6<;,  avarrjpos. 

In  the  parable  of  the  Talents  (Matt,  xxv.),  the 
slothful  servant  charges  his  master  with  being 
GKkrjpos,  "  an  hard  man "  (ver.  24) ;  while  in  the 
corresponding  parable  of  St.  Luke  it  is  avaTrjpu<;, 
"  an  austere  man  "  (xix.  21),  which  he  accuses  him 
of  being.  It  follows  that  the  words  are  to  a  certain 
degree  interchangeable ;  but  not  that  their  mean- 
ings run  exactly  parallel  throughout.  They  will  be 
found,  on  the  contrary,  very  capable  of  discrimina- 
tion and  distinction,  however  the  distinction  may 
not  affect  the  inter]3retation  of  these  parables. 

^K\7]p6<;,  derived  fi-om  cr/ceXXw,  aKXrjvai,  '  arefa- 
cio,'  is  properly  an  ej)ithet  expressing  that  which 
through  lack  of  moisture  is  hard  and  dry,  and  thus 


XEW  testame:nt  <o 

rougli  and  disagreeable  to  the  toucn ;  nay  more, 
warped  and  intractable.  It  is  then  transferred  to 
the  region  of  ethics,  in  which  is  by  far  its  most  fre- 
quent use ;  and  where  it  expresses  the  roughness, 
hai-shness,  and  intractability  in  the  moral  nature  of 
a  man.  Thus  it  is  an  epithet  applied  to  Xabal  (1 
Sam.  XXV.  3),  and  no  other  could  better  express  the 
evil  condition  of  the  churl.  Looking  to  the  com- 
pany which  aK\7]p6<;  keeps,  we  find  it  commonly 
associated  with  such  words  as  the  following :  a^- 
fL7}p6<:  (Plato,  S^mj?.  195  cT) ;  avTirvn-o^  {TAecet  loo 
a) ;  dypLo<;  (Aristotle,  Ethic,  iv.  8) ;  Plutarch  (Cons, 
ad  Apoll.  3) ;  arpeiTTo^  (Diogenes  Laertius,  vii.  1. 
61:,  lit) ;  'TTovrjpo^  (1  Sam.  xxv.  3).  It  is  set  over 
against  €v7]6lk6<;  (Plato,  Cliarm.  175  d)\  fJLoXaKo^ 
{Protag.  331  d) ;  piaKdafco^  {Symj?.  195  d). 

Ava-TTjpo^,  which  in  the  Xew  Testament  only  ap- 
pears in  the  single  passage  abeady  refeiTed  to,  and 
never  in  the  Old,  is  in  its  primary  meaning  applied 
to  such  things  as  draw  together  and  contract  the 
tongue,  which  are,  as  we  say,  harsh  and  stringent 
to  the  palate,  as  new  wine,  not  yet  mellowed  by 
age,  unripe  fr'uit,  and  the  like.  Thus,  when  the 
poet  Cowper  describes  himself,  when  a  boy,  as 
gathering  from  the  hedgerows  "  sloes  austere^''  he 
uses  the  word  with  exactest  propriety.  Eut  just  as 
we  have  transfeiTcd  *  strict '  (from  ^  sti'ingo '),  to  the 
region  of  ethics,  so  the  Greeks  transferred  avar-qposy 


76  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

the  image  here  being  borrowed  from  the  taste,  as  in 
aKk7)p6<i  it  is  borrowed  from  the  touch.  ISTeither 
does  this  word  set  out  anything  amiable  or  attractive 
in  him  to  whom  it  is  applied.  We  find  it  in  such 
company  as  the  following ;  joined  with  ar]hr)^  (Plato, 
Pol.  398  a)  ;  aKparo^  and  avr)hvvTo<;  (Plutarch,  Conj. 
PrcBG.  29) ;  avr}hv(TTo<i  {Phoc.  5)  ;  avdi/caaro^ '  (Pe 
Adul.  et  Am.  14).  We  find,  further,  Aristotle 
{Ethic.  Pudem.  vii.  5),  contrasting  the  avcrTT]p6<; 
with  the  evrpdireXos,  which  last  word  he  uses  in  a 
good  sense. 

At  the  same  time  it  will  be  observed  that  in 
none  of  the  e23ithets  with  which  we  have  thus  found 
avarr)p6<s  associated,  is  there  that  deej)  moral  per- 
versity which  lies  in  those  with  which  aK\r)p6<;  is 
linked ;  and,  moreover,  it  is  met  not  seldom  in  more 
honourable  company ;  thus  it  is  joined  with  acocjipcov 
continually  (Plutarch,  Co72J.  Prcjec.  vii.  29 ;  Qucest. 
Gr.  40) ;  while  the  Stoics  were  wont  to  affirm  all 
good  men  to  be  avarrjpoi  (Diogenes  Laertius,  vii. 
1.  64,  117)  :  fcal  ava-T7)pov9  Se  cj^aaiv  elvai  7rdvTa<i 
Tou?  aiTOvhaiov<i  tu>  fjirjre  avrovs  7rpo<;  rjSoviji'  ofiikelVj 
fjL7]T6  Trap'  aXKdov  rd  tt/oo?  rjBovrjv  7rpoaSe')(^6a6at.  In 
Latin   'austerus'   is  predominantly  an  epithet  of 

1  In  Plutarch  this  word  is  used  in  an  ill  sense,  as  self-willed, 
'eigensinnig;'  being  one  of  the  niau}',  in  all  languages,  which,  be- 
ginning with  a  good  sense  (Aristotle,  Eihlc.  Nic.  iv.  7),  ended  with 
a  bad. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  77 

honour  (Doderlein,  Lat.  Synon.  vol.  iii.  p.  232). 
Tlie  '  austerus '  is  one  of  an  earnest,  severe  charac- 
ter, opposed  to  all  levity ;  needing,  it  may  very  well 
be,  to  watch  against  harshness,  rigour,  or  morose- 
ness,  into  which  his  character  might  easily  degene- 
rate (non  austeritas  ejus  tristis,  non  dissoluta  sit 
comitas,  Quintilian,  ii.  2.  5),  but  as  yet  not  charged 
with  these. 

We  may  distmguish,  then,  between  aKkripo^  and 
av<TT7]p6<^  thus :  aKXrjpo^,  applied  to  any,  conveys 
always  a  reproach  and  a  severe  one,  indicates  a 
character  harsh,  inhuman,  and  (in  the  earlier  use 
of  the  word)  uncivil ;  avaTrjp6<;,  on  the  contrar}^, 
does  not  always  convey  a  reproach  at  all,  any  more 
than  the  German  '  streng,'  which  is  very  different 
from  '  hart ; '  and  even  where  it  does,  yet  one  of  com- 
paratively a  milder  and  less  opprobrious  description. 


§  XV. — eLKcov,  ofjLoicocrc^,  ofMOLco/xa. 

There  is  a  double  theological  interest  attending 
the  distinction  between  eUcov  and  the  two  words 
which  are  here  brought  into  comparison  with  it ; 
the  first  belonging  to  the  Arian  controversy,  and 
turning  on  the  fitness  or  unfitness  of  the  words 
before  us  to  set  forth  the  relation  of  the  Son  to  the 


78  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

Father ;  while  tlie  other  is  an  interest  that  might 
seem  at  hrst  sight  remote  from  any  controversy, 
which  yet  has  contrived  to  insinnate  itself  into  more 
than  one,  namely,  whether  there  be  a  distinction, 
and  if  so  w^iat  it  is,  between  the  image  {eUcov)  of 
God,  in  whicJi^  and  the  likeness  {ofxoLcocrts:)  of  God, 
aj^ter  which  man  at  the  first  is  declared  to  have  been 
created  (Gen.  i.  26). 

And  first,  for  the  distinction  drawn  between  the 
words  during  the  course  of  the  long  Arian  debate. 
It  is  evident  that  eiKcov  (from  eoiKo)  and  o/xolcD/xa 
might  often  be  used  as  equivalent,  and  in  many  po- 
sitions it  would  be  indifferent  whether  of  the  two 
were  employed.  Thus  they  are  convertibly  used 
by  Plato  {Phceclr.  250  h),  o/jLocoy/naTa  and  eiKove^; 
alike,  to  set  forth  the  earthly  patterns  and  resem- 
blances of  the  archetypal  things  in  the  heavens. 
"When,  however,  the  Church  found  it  necessary  to 
raise  up  bulwarks  against  Arian  error  and  Arian 
equivocation,  it  drew  a  strong  distinction  between 
these  words,  one  not  arbitrary,  but  having  essential 
diflPerence  for  its  ground.  Elkcov  (=  imago,  imita- 
go)  always  supposes  a  prototype,  that  which  it  not 
merely  resembles,  but  from  which  it  is  drawm.  It 
is  the  German  'Abbild,'  which  invariably  presumes 
a  '  Yorbild  ; '  Gregory  !N^azianzene,  Orat.  36  :  avTTj 
fyap  eiKovo^  (pvat^;,  fiijuLrj/jLa  elvau  rod  ap')(^6TV7rov.  (Pe- 
tavius,  De   Trin.  vi.  5,  6.)     Thus,  the  monarch's 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  79 

head  on  the  coin  is  eUdtv  (Matt.  xxii.  20) ;  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  sun  in  the  water  is  its  eUoov  (Plato, 
Phcedo^  99  d) ;  the  statue  in  stone  or  other  material 
is  elK(ov  (Rev.  xiii.  14) ;  the  child  is  efiylrv^o^  ecKcop 
of  his  parents.      But  in  the  ofMoicofia  or  6fxoL(ocrL<^, 
while  there  is  resemblance,  it  by  no  means  follows 
that  it  has  been  gotten  in  this  way,  that  it  is  de- 
rived :    it  may  be  accidental,  as  one  egg  is  like 
another,  as  there  may  exist  a  resemblance  between 
two  men  who  are  not  in  any  way  akin  to  one  another. 
Thus,  as  Augustine  in  an  instructive  passage  brings 
out  {Qucesf.  Ixxxiii.  74),  the  4mago'  (=  eUcov)  in- 
cludes and  involves  the  '  similitudo,'  but  the  '  simi- 
litudo '  (=  6fioLcocrL<;)  does  not  involve  the  '  imago.' 
The  reason  will  at  once  be  manifest  why  elKcov  is 
applied  to  the  Son,  as  the  expression  of  his  relation 
to  the  Father  (1  Cor.  xi.  7;  Col.  i.  15  ;  cf.  "Wisd.  of 
Sol.  vii.  26) ;    while   among  all  the  words  of  the 
family  of  oyLtoio?,  not  merely  none  are  so  employed 
in  the  Scripture,  but  they  have  all  been  expressly 
forbidden  and  condemned  by  the  Church ;  that  is, 
so  soon  as  ever  it  has  had  reason  to  suspect  foul 
play,  and  that  they  are  not  used  in  good  faith. 
Thus  Hilary,  addressing  an  Arian,  says,  "  I  may  use 
them,  to  exclude  Sabellian  error ;  but  I  will  not  al- 
low you  to  do  so,  whose  intention  is  altogether  dif- 
ferent "  {Co?i.  Constant.  Imp.  17 — 21). 

EUcav,  when  employed  of  the  Son,  like  %a/3a/c- 


80  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

T7Jp  and  airav'^/aa^a  (Ileb.  i.  3),  witli  wliicli  theologi- 
cally it  is  nearly  related,  is  indeed  inadequate^  but, 
at  the  same  time,  it  is  true  as  far  as  it  goes ;  and  in 
human  language,  employed  for  the  setting  forth  of 
truths  which  transcend  human  thought,  we  must 
be  content  with  approximative  assertions,  seeking 
for  the  complement  of  their  inadequacy,  that  which 
shall  redress  their  insufficiency,  from  some  other 
quarter.  Each  has  its  weak  side,  which  must  be 
supported  by  strength  derived  from  elsewhere. 
EIkcov  is  not  without  its  weakness  ;  for  what  image 
is  of  equal  worth  and  dignity  with  the  prototype 
from  which  it  is  imaged  ?  Eut  it  has  also  its  strong 
side ;  it  at  any  rate  expresses  derivation  /  while 
ojioLOTT}'^^  6jioLwaL<;y  or  any  other  words  of  this  fami- 
ly, expressing  mere  similarity,  if  they  did  not  ac- 
tually imply,  might  yet  suggest,  and  if  they  sug- 
gested, would  seem  to  justify,  error,  and  that  with 
no  compensating  advantage.  Exactly  the  same 
considerations  were  at  work  here,  which,  in  respect 
of  the  verbs  >yevvav  and  kti^€lv,  did  in  this  same  con- 
troversy cause  the  Church  to  allow  the  one,  and  to 
condemn  the  other. 

The  second  interest  in  the  discrimination  of  these 
words  lies  in  the  question  which  has  often  been  dis- 
cussed, whether  in  that  great  iiat  announcing  man's 
original  constitution,    "Let  us  make  man  in  our 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  81 

image  (eUdiv  LXX.,  obs  Heb.),  after  our  likeness  " 
{6fjLoi(ocrL<;  LXX.,  r.^ia'n  Heb.),  anything  different  was 
intended  by  the  second  than  by  the  first,  or  whether 
the  second  is  merely  to  be  regarded  as  consequent 
upon  the  first,  "  in  our  image "  and  therefore 
"  after  our  likeness."  Both  are  claimed  for  man  in 
the  ISTew  Testament :  the  eUajv,  1  Cor.  xi.  7 ;  the 
6/jLOLcoac<;,  Jam.  iii.  9. 

Many  of  the  early  Fathers,  as  also  of  the 
Schoolmen,  maintained  that  there  was  a  real  dis- 
tinction. Thus,  the  Alexandrians  taught  that  the 
eUayv  was  somethins;  in  which  men  were  created, 
being  common  to  all,  and  continuing  to  man  after 
the  fall  as  before  (Gen.  ix.  6),  while  the  o/j-oicoai^ 
was  something  toicard  which  man  was  created,  that 
he  might  strive  after  and  attain  it ;  Origen,  Princ. 
iii.  6  :  Imaginis  dignitatem  in  prima  conditione  per- 
cepit,  similitudinis  vero  perfectio  in  consummatione 
servata  est ;  cf.  in  Joan.  tom.  xx.  20.  It  can  hardly 
be  doubted  that  the  Platonist  studies  and  predilec- 
tions of  the  Christian  theologians  of  Alexandria  had 
some  influence  upon  them  here,  and  on  this  distinc- 
tion which  they  drew.  It  is  well  known  that  Plato 
presented  the  6/ioLova6ao  ra>  OeS  Kara  to  Svvarov 
{Thecet.  176  a)  as  the  highest  scope  of  man's  life  ; 
and  indeed  Clement  {Strom,  ii.  22)  brings  the  great 
passage  of  Plato  to  bear  upon  this  very  discussion. 
The  Schoolmen,  in  like  manner,  drew  a  distinction. 


82  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

although  it  was  not  this  one,  between  ''  tnese  two 
divine  stamps  upon  man."  Lombard,  Sent.  ii.  dist. 
16;  H.  de  S.  Yictore,  De  Animd,  ii.  25  ;  De  Sac. 
i.  6.  2 :  Imago  secundum  cognitionem  veritatis, 
similitudo  secundum  amorem  virtutis ;  the  first  de- 
claring the  intellectual,  as  the  second  the  moral  pre- 
eminence, in  which  man  was  created.  Many,  how- 
ever, have  refused  to  acknowledge  these,  or  anj 
other  distinctions  between  the  two  declarations ;  as 
Baxter,  for  instance,  who,  in  his  interesting  reply  to 
Elliott's,  the  Indian  Missionary's,  inquiries  on  the 
subject,  rejects  them  all  as  groundless  conceits, 
though  himself  in  general  only  too  anxious  for  dis- 
tinction and  division  {Zife,  vol.  ii.  p.  296). 

It  is  hard  to  think  that  they  were  justified  in 
this  rejection ;  for  myself  I  should  rather  believe 
that  the  Alexandrians  were  very  near  the  truth,  if 
they  did  not  grasj)  it  altogether.  There  are  emi- 
nently significant  parts  of  Scripture,  where  the 
words  of  Jerome,  originally  applied  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse, '  quot  verba  tot  sacramenta,'  can  hardly  be 
said  to  contain  an  exaggeration.  Such  a  part  is  the 
history  of  man's  creation  and  his  fall,  in  the  first 
three  chaj^ters  of  Genesis.  We  may  expect  to  find 
mysteries  there  ; -prophetic  intimations  of  truths 
which  it  might  require  ages  and  ages  to  develop. 
And,  without  attempting  to  draw  any  very  strict 
line  between  eiKMv  and  ofjioma-i^^  or  their  Hebrew 


NEW    TESTAMENT.     "  83 

originals,  I  tliink  we  may  be  bold  to  say  that  tlie 
whole  history  of  man,  not  only  in  his  original  crea- 
tion, but  also  in  his  after  restoration  and  reconstitn- 
tion  in  the  Son,  is  significantly  wrapped  up  in  this 
double  statement;  which  is  double  for  this  Tery 
cause,  that  the  Divine  Mind  did  not  stop  at  the 
contemplation  of  his  first  creation,  but  looked  on  to 
him  as  "  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of 
Him  that  created  him "  (Col.  iii.  10) ;  because  it 
knew  that  only  as  partaker  of  this  double  benefit 
would  he  attain  the  true  end  for  which  he  was  made. 


§  xvi. — acrcoTia^  daeXyeia. 

The  man  who  is  aawro^^  it  is  little  likely  that  he 
will  not  be  dae\yr)<^  also ;  and  yet  doroaria  and  dorek- 
yeia  are  not  identical  in  meaning ;  they  will  express 
difierent  aspects  of  his  sin,  or  at  any  rate  contem- 
plate it  from  difi'erent  points  of  view. 

And  first  dawTia^  a  word  in  which  heathen  ethics 
said  much  more  than  they  intended  or  knew.  It 
occurs  thrice  in  the  l^ew  Testament  (Eph.  v.  18 ; 
Tit.  i.  6 ;  1  Pet.  iv.  4) ;  once  only  in  the  Septuagint 
(Prov.  xxviii.  Y).  Besides  this  we  have  the  adverb 
a(7a>Tct)9,  Luke  xiv.  13  ;  and  dacoro^  once  in  the  Sep- 
tuagint, Prov.  vii.  11.     At  Eph.  v,  18  we  translate 


84  *  SYNONY^lS    OF    THE 

it  '  excess ; '  in  tlie  other  two  places,  ^  not,'  as  the 
t,o)v  cKTOiTco^,  'in  riotous  living;'  the  Yulgate  al- 
ways by  '  luxuria '  and  '  luxuriose,'  words  which,  it 
is  hardly  needful  to  observe,  imply  in  Latin  much 
more  of  loose  and  profligate  living  than  our  '  luxu- 
ry '  and  '  luxuriously  '  do  7ioio.  The  word  is  some- 
times taken  in  a  passive  sense,  as  though  it  were 
aacoa-TO<;,  one  who  cannot  be  saved,  acal^eadai  fij] 
Svvdfievo<;,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria  (Pcedag.  ii.  1) 
expressly  explains  it,  =  '  23erditus,'  '  heillos,'  or  as 
we  used  to  say,  a  '  losel.'  Grotius :  Genus  hominum 
ita  immersorum  vitiis,  ut  eorum  salus  deplorata  sit; 
the  word  being,  so  to  speak,  prophetic  of  their 
doom  to  whom  it  was  applied.  '■  This,  however,  was 
quite  its  rarer  use  ;  more  commonly  the  daoiTo<;  is 
not  one  who  cannot  be  saved,  but  who  cannot  him- 
self save,  or  spare  ;  ==  '  prodigus,'  or,  again  to  use 
a  good  old  English  word  which  we  have  now  let  go, 
a  '  scatterling.'  Aristotle  notes  that  this,  a  too 
great  prodigality  in  the  use  of  money,  is  the  ear- 

^  Thus,  in  the  AdelpJd  of  Terence  (iv.  1),  one' having  spoken 
of  a  youth  *  luxu  perdiium,^  proceeds : 

Ipsa  si  cupiat  Salus, 
bervare  prorsus  non  potest  hanc  familiam. 

K"o  doubt  in  the  Greek  original  from  \rliicli  Terence  translated  tliis 
comedy,  there  was  a  play  here  on  the  word  &(ra}Tos,  which  the  ab- 
sence of  the  verb  'salvare'  fi'om  the  Latin  language  has  hindered 
Terence  from  preserving. 


NEW    TESTAMEXT.  85 

liest  meaning  of  dacoria,  giving  this  as  its  definition 
(JEtliic.  Nic.  iv.  1.  3)  ;  da wt la  iarLv  virep^oXr)  irepl 
XPVP'CiTa.  The  word  forms  part  of  his  ethical  ter- 
minology; the  iXevOepco^,  or  the  truly  liberal  man, 
is  with  him  one  who  keeps  the  golden  mean  be- 
tween the  two  uKpa,  namely,  dacorla  on  one  side, 
and  dvekevOepia  or  stinginess,  on  the  other.  And  it 
is  in  this  view  of  dacorla  that  Plato  {jPoI.  viii.  560  e), 
when  he  names  the  various  catachrestic  terms,  ac- 
cording to  which  men  call  their  vices  by  the  names 
of  the  virtues  which  they  caricature,  makes  them 
style  these  dacorla,  fieyaXoirpeireia.^  It  is  with  the 
word  at  this  stage  of  its  meaning  that  Plutarch 
joins  iroXvreXeia  {De  A])otheg.  Cat.  1). 

But  it  is  easy  to  see,  and  xYristotle  does  not  fail 
to  note,  that  one  who  is  aacoro^  in  this  sense  of 
spending  too  much,  of  laying  out  his  expenditure 
on  a  more  magnificent  scheme  than  his  means  will 
warrant,  slides  too  easily  under  the  fatal  influence 
of  flatterers,  and  of  all  tliose  temptations  with  which 
he  has  surrounded  himself,  into  a  spending  on  his 
own  lusts  and  appetites  of  that  with  which  he  ]3art3 
60  easily,  laying  it  out  for  the  gratification  of  his 
own  sensual  desires ;  and  that  thus  a  new  thought 
finds  its  way  into  the  word,  so  that  it  indicates  not 
only  one  of  a  too  expensive,  but  also  and  chiefly, 

'  Quintilian  {InU.  viii.  36) :  Pro  luxuria  liberalitas  dicitur. 


86  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

of  a  dissolute,  clebauclied,  profligate  manner  of  liv- 
ing ;  the  German  '  liiderlicli.'  These  are  his  words 
{Ethic.  Nic,  iv.  1.  36) :  hCo  koli  ciKoKaaTOb  avrwv 
\to)v  aaonTcdv]  elaiv  ol  iroXkor  ev^^epco?  jap  avciKi- 
O-K0VT6S  zeal  et?  ra?  d/co\aala<;  hairavTjpoi  elcri,  koX  Bi.a 
TO  /i7]  7rp6<;  TO  KoXov  ^rjp,  Trpo?  tcl^  r]hova<^  airoKki- 
vovaiv.  Here  he  gives  the  reason  of  what  he  has 
stated  before :  tov<;  aKpaTel^  koI  ek  aKoXaalav  Sa- 
iravripov<i  aaooTov^;  Kakov[X€v. 

In  this  sense  aacoTia  is  nsed  in  the  ]^ew  Testa- 
ment ;  as  we  find  dacoTiaL  and  KpaiiraXai  (Herodian, 
ii.  5)  joined  elsewhere  together.  It  will  of  conrse 
at  once  be  felt  that  the  two  meanings  will  often  run 
into  one  another,  and  that  it  will  be  hardly  possible 
to  keep  them  strictly  asunder.  Thus  see  the  various 
examples  of  the  dacoTo?,  and  of  dawTLa,  which 
Athenseus  (iv.  59 — 67)  gives  ;  they  are  sometimes 
rather  of  one  kind,  sometimes  of  the  other.  The 
waster  of  his  goods  will  be  very  often  a  waster 
of  ever^^thing  besides,  will  lay  waste  himself — his 
time,  his  faculties,  his  powers  ;  and,  we  may  add, 
uniting  the  active  and  passive  meanings  of  the  word, 
will  be  himself  laid  waste  ;  he  loses  himself,  and  is 
lost. 

There  is  a  diiference  in  daeXycia,  a  word  the 
derivation  of  which  is  wrapped  in  much  obscurity ; 
some  going  so  far  to  look  for  it  as  to  Selge,  a  city, 
of  Pisidia,  whose  inhabitants   were   infamous  for 


NEW    TESTA:ME2sT.  8'7 

their  vices  ;  while  others  derive  it  from  OeXyeiv, 
probably  the  same  word  as  the  German  '  schwel- 
gen.'  Of  more  frequent  nse  than  dacorla  in  the 
Xew  Testament,  it  is  by  ns  generally  rendered  '  las- 
civiousness '  (Mark  vii.  22 ;  2  Cor.  xii.  21 ;  Gal.  v. 
19 ;  Eph.  iv.  19 ;  1  Pet.  iv.  3 ;  Jude  4) ;  though 
sometimes  *  wantonness '  (Rom.  xiii.  13 ;  2  Pet.  ii. 
18) ;  as  in  the  Yulgate  either  by  '  impudicitia  '  or 
*  luxuria.'  If  our  translators  or  the  Latin  intended 
by  these  renderings  to  express  exclusively  impuri- 
ties and  lusts  of  the  flesh,  they  have  certainly  given 
to  the  word  too  narrow  a  meaning.  The  aaeXjeia, 
which  it  will  be  observed  is  not  grouped  with 
fleshly  lusts,  in  the  catalogue  of  sins  at  Mark  vii. 
21,  22,  is  best  described  as  petulance,  or  wanton  in- 
solence ;  being  somewhat  stronger  than  the  Latin 
'  protervitas,'  though  of  the  same  nature,  more 
nearly  'petulantia.'  The  acreXyrj^,  as  Passow  ob- 
serves, is  very  closely  allied  to  the  v/SpLariKo^  and 
a/coXao-To?,  being  one  who  acknowledges  no  re- 
straints, who  dares  whatsoever  his  caprice  and  wan- 
ton insolence  suggest.^  ]^one,  of  course,  would 
deny  that  aa-ikyeta  may  display  itself  in  acts  of  what 
we  call  '  lasciviousness  • '  for  there  are  no  worse  dis- 

*  Thus  Witsius  (Jlelet.  Lcid.  p.  465)  observes :  aaixyeiav  diei 
posse  omnon  tarn  ingenii,  quam  moruni  proterviam,  petulantiam, 
lasciviatD,  quaj  ab  ^schine  opponitur  t^  fxerpioT-qTi  kuI  ewtppocrvvri. 


88  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

plays  of  £;/S/3t?  than  in  these ;  but  still  it  is  their 
petulance,  their  insolence,  which  causes  them  to 
deserve  this  name ;  and  of  the  two  renderings  of 
the  word  which  we  have  mad6, '  wantonness '  seems 
to  me  the  preferable,  standing  as  it  does,  by  the 
double  meaning  which  it  has,  in  a  remarkable 
ethical  connexion  with  the  w^ord  which  we  now  are 
considering. 

In  a  multitude  of  passages  the  notion  of  lasci- 
viousness  is  altogether  absent  from  the  word.  Thus 
Demosthenes,  making  mention  of  the  blow  which 
Meidias  had  given  him,  characterises  it  as  in  keep- 
ing with  the  known  aaeXyeca  of  the  man  {Con.  Meid. 
514).  Elsewhere  he  joins  Bea-7roTLKco<;  and  ao-eXyw?, 
ao-eXyw?  and  Trpoirerm.  As  daeXyeca  Plutarch 
characterises  a  like  outrage  on  the  part  of  Alcibi- 
ades,  committed  against  an  honourable  citizen  of 
Athens  {Alcib.  8) ;  indeed,  the  whole  j)icture  which 
he  draws  of  Alcibiades  is  the  full-length  portrait 
of  an  acreXy?}?.  Josephus  ascribes  daeXyeia  and 
fiavLa  to  Jezebel,  daring,  as  she  did,  to  build  a  tem- 
ple of  Baal  in  the  Holy  City  itself  {Antt.  viii.  13. 
1) ;  and  the  same  to  a  Roman  soldier,  who,  being 
on  guard  at  the  Temple  during  the  Passover,  pro- 
voked by  an  act  of  grossest  indecency  a  tumult,  in 
which  great  multitudes  of  lives  were  lost  {Antt.  xx. 
6.  3).  And  for  other  passages,  helpful  to  a  fixing 
of  the  true  meaning  of  daekyeia^  see  3  Mace.  ii.  26  ; 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  89 

Polybius,  viii.  li.  1 ;  Eusebius,  H.E.  v.  1.  26 ;  and 
the  quotations  given  in  Wetstein's  New  Testament, 
vol.  i.  p.  588.  It,  then,  and  aacnTia  are  clearly  dis- 
tinguishable ;  the  fundamental  notion  of  dacorla 
being  wastefulness  and  riotous  excess ;  of  dcreXy^ca, 
lawless  insolence  and  wanton  caj^rice. 


§  xvii. — diyycivcOj  dirTO/JLai^  '\ln]\a(f)dco. 

We  are  sometimes  enabled,  by  the  help  of  an 
accurate  synonymous  distinction,  at  once  to  reject 
as  untenable  some  interpretation  of  a  passage  of 
Scripture,  which  might,  but  for  this,  have  main- 
tained itself  as  at  least  a  possible  explanation  of  it. 
Thus  is  it  with  Heb.  xii.  18  :  "  For  ye  are  not  come 
unto  the  mount  that  might  he  touched  "  {-yjrrjXacjico- 
fieva  Spec).  Many  interpreters  have  seen  allusion 
in  these  words  to  Ps.  civ.  32 :  ''  He  toucheth  the 
hills  and  they  smoke ; "  and  to  the  fact  that,  at  the 
giving  of  the  Law,  God  did  descend  upon  mount 
Sinai,  which  "  was  altogether  on  a  smoke,  because 
the  Lord  descended  upon  it "  (Exod.  xix.  18).  But, 
not  to  say  that  in  such  case  we  should  expect  a 
perfect,  as  in  the  following  KeKavjievw,  still  more 
decisively  against  this  is  the  fact  that  yjnjXacpdo)  is 
never  used  in  the  sense  of  so  handling  an  object  as 


90  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

to  exercise  a  moulding,  modifying  influence  upon  it, 
but  only  to  indicate  a  feeling  of  its  surface  (Luke 
xxiv.  39 ;  1  John  i.  1) ;  often  such  a  feeling  as  is 
made  with  the  intention  of  learning  its  composition 
(Gen.  xxvii.  12,  21,  22) ;  while  not  seldom  the  word 
signifies  no  more  than  a  feeling  for  or  after  an  ob- 
ject, without  any  actual  coming  in  contact  with  it 
at  all.  It  is  used  continually  to  express  a  groping 
in  the  dark  (Job  v.  14),  or  of  the  blind  (Isa.  lix.  10  ; 
Gen.  xxvii.  12  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  29 ;  Judg.  xvi.  26) ; 
and  tropically.  Acts  xvii.  27 ;  with  which  we  may 
compare  Plato,  Phced.  99  J ;  '\^ri\a<f>wvTe<i  coairep  iv 
G-Korei.  The  yjrTjXacfxio/jLevov  opo^^  in  this  passage,  is 
beyond  a  doubt  the  '  mons  jjal{pahilvs : '  "  Ye  are 
not  come,"  the  Apostle  would  say,  "  to  any  material 
mountain,  like  Sinai,  caj)able,  as  such,  of  being 
touched  and  handled ;  not  in  this  sense,  to  the 
mountain  that  may  be/t'Z^,  but  to  the  heavenly  Jeru- 
salem," to  a  voTjTov  opo^i,  and  not  to  an  aladrjTov. 

The  so  handling  of  any  object  as  to  exert  a 
modifying  influence  upon  it,  the  French  '  manier,' 
as  distinguished  from  '  toucher,'  the  German  '  betas- 
ten,'  as  distinguished  from  'beriihren,'  would  be 
either  aTrreadai '  or  diy^dveiv.  Of  these  the  first 
is  stronger  than  the  second ;    aTrrea-Oac   (=  '  con- 

^  In  the  passage  alluded  to  already,  Ps.  civ.  32,  tne  words  of 
the  Septuagint  are,  6  aTrrSfievos  twv  opiwv,  koX  Kairvi^ovTai. 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  91 

trectare'),  than  Oiy^/dveiv  (Ps.  civ.  15  ;  1  John  v.  18), 
as  appears  plainly  in  a  passage  of  Xenophon  {Cyroj?. 
i.  3.  5),  where  the  child  Cyrus,  rebuking  his  grand- 
father's delicacies,  says :  6tl  ae  opoj,  orav  /lev  rov 
dpTov  dyjrrj,  €l<;  ovSev  Trjv  %et/ca  airo'^diixevov^  orav  Be 
TovTcov  riv6<i  0  cyy;,  6v6v<;  airoKaOaiprf  rrjv  %etpa  €l<; 
rd  '^eLpofjLaKrpa,  &)?  Trdvv  d-)^66pievo^.  Our  Version, 
then,  has  just  reversed  the  true  order  of  the  words, 
when,  at  Col.  ii.  21,  it  translates  imtj  dyjrr],  /jirjBe  yevar}^ 
firjhe  6lyr]^,  "  Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not." 
The  first  and  last  prohibitions  should,  in  our  Eng- 
lish, just  have  changed  their  places,  and  the  pas- 
sage should  stand,  "  Handle  not,  taste  not,  touch 
not."  How  much  more  strongly  will  then  come 
out  the  ever  ascending  scale  of  superstitious  pro- 
hibition among  the  false  teachers  at  Colosse. 
'  Handle  not '  is  not  sufiicient  ;  they  forbid  to 
'  taste '  and,  lastly,  even  to  touch  those  things 
from  which,  according  to  their  notions,  unclean- 
ness  might  be  derived.  Beza  well :  Yerbum  dlyeiv 
a  verbo  d-TrreaOaL  sic  est  distinguendum,  ut  decres- 
cente  semper  oratione  intelligatur  crescere  super- 
stitio. 


92  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 


§  xviii. — iraXiyyevecTLay  dvaKalvcocrifi. 

^Avay€vp7](7L^,  a  word  frequent  enough  in  the 
Greek  Fathers  (see  Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v.),  no  where 
occurs  in  the  Isew  Testament ;  although  the  verb 
dvayevvdo)  twice  (1  Pet.  i.  13,  23).  Did  we  meet 
dvayevvT](TL<;  there,  it  would  furnish  a  still  closer 
synonym  to  iraXLyjeveala  than  the  dvafcaivcoaL<;, 
which  I  propose  to  bring  into  comparison  with  it : 
yet  that  also  is  sufficiently  close  to  justify  the 
attempt  at  once  to  compare  and  distinguish  them. 
It  will  be  no  small  gain  to  the  practical  theologian, 
to  the  minister  of  God's  word,  to  be  clear  in  his  own 
mind  in  respect  of  the  relation  between  the  two. 

UaXiyyevea-ia  naturally  demands  first  to  be  con- 
sidered. This  is  one  of  the  many  words  which  the 
Gospel  found,  and,  so  to  speak,  glorified ;  enlarged 
the  borders  of  its  meaning ;  lifted  it  up  into  a 
higher  sphere  ;  made  it  the  expression  of  far  deeper 
thoughts,  of  far  greater  truths,  than  any  of  which 
it  had  been  the  vehicle  before.  It  was,  indeed,  al- 
ready in  use ;  but,  as  the  Christian  new-birth  was 
not  till  after  Christ's  birth ;  as  men  were  not  new- 
born, till  Christ  was  born  (John  i.  12) ;  as  their  re- 
generation did  not  go  before,  but  only  followed  his 
generation;  so  the  word  could  not  be  used  in  this 


NEW    TESTA^IENT.  vd 

its  highest,  most  mysterious  sense,  till  that  great 
mysteiy  of  the  birth  of  the  Son  of  God  into  om* 
world  had  actually  found  place.  And  yet  it  is  ex- 
ceedingly interesting  to  trace  these  its  subordinate, 
and,  as  they  proved,  preparatory  uses.  Thus,  by 
the  Pythagoreans,  as  is  well  known,  the  word  was 
employed  to  express  the  transmigration  of  souls  ; 
their  reappearance  in  new  bodies  being  called  rrra- 
XcyyeveaLa :  Plutarch,  De  Esu  Car.  i.  7 ;  ii.  6 ;  De 
Isid.  et  Osir.  c.  35  :  ^Oa-lptBo<;  at  avapLoaaeLs  koX  ira- 
Xtyyevea-tal :  De  Ei  aj).  Del/p.  9 :  aiToPm(jei<^  Kal 
iraXiyyeveaiaL  Among  the  Stoics  the  word  set 
forth  the  periodic  renovation  of  the  earth,  when, 
budding  and  blossoming  in  the  spring-time,  it  woke 
up  from  its  winter  sleep,  nay,  might  be  said  even  to 
have  revived  from  its  winter  death :  Marc.  Anton. 
ii.  1 :  TTiv  7repLoSLKr)v  irdkiyyeveaiav  rSiv  oXcov.  Ci- 
cero {Ad  Attic,  vi.  6)  calls  his  restoration  to  his 
dignities  and  honours,  after  his  return  from  exile, 
'  banc  TraXiyyeveaiav  nostram ; '  with  which  compare 
Philo,  Leg.  ad  Cai.  41.  Josephus  {Antt.  xi.  3.  9) 
characterises  the  restoration  of  the  Jewish  nation 
after  the  Captivity,  as  rrjv  avuKTi-jaiv  koX  TraXcyye- 
vealav  t?}?  iraTpiho^.  And,  to  cite  one  passage  more, 
Olympiodorus,  a  later  Platonist,  styles  memory  a 
revival  or  iraXiyyeveata  of  knowledge  {Journal  des 
Savans^  1834,  p.  488)  :  TTdkiyyeveaia  Trj<;  yvcoaeco^; 
icTTCv  7]  avafjivrjcrc^. 


94  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

No  one  who  lias  carefully  watched  and  weighed 
the  uses  of  iraXi'y'yevecrLa  just  adduced,  and  similar 
ones  which  might  be  added,  but  will  note  that 
while  it  has  in  them  all  the  meaning  of  a  recovery, 
a  change  for  the  better,  a  revival,  yet  it  never 
reaches,  or  even  approaches,  the  depth  of  meaning 
which  it  has  acquired  in  Christian  language,  and 
which  will  now  claim  a  little  to  be  considered.  The 
word  occurs  never  in  the  Old  Testament  {iraXiv  yi- 
veaOaL  at  Job  xiv.  14),  and  only  twice  in  the  I^ew 
(Matt  xix.  28 ;  Tit.  iii.  5),  but  there  (which  is  most 
remarkable)  apparently  in  different  meanings.  In 
St.  Matthew  it  seems  plainly  to  refer  to  the  new- 
birth  of  the  whole  creation,  the  aTrofcarda-TaaLf;  irdv- 
Tcou  (Acts  iii.  21),  which  shall  be  when  the  Son  of 
Man  hereafter  comes  in  his  glory ;  while  in  St. 
Paul's  use  of  the  word  the  allusion  is  plainly  to  the 
new-birth  of  the  single  soul,  which  is  now  evermore 
finding  place  in  the  waters  of  baptism.  Shall  we 
then  acquiesce  in  the  conclusion  that  it  is  used  in 
diverse  meanings ;  that  there  is  no  common  bond 
which  binds  the  two  uses  of  it  together  ?  By  no 
means ;  all  laws  of  language  are  violated  by  any 
such  supposition.  The  fact  is,  rather,  that  the  word 
by  our  Lord  is  used  in  a  wider,  by  his  Apostle  in  a 
narrower  meaning.  They  are  two  circles  of  mean- 
ing, one  more  comprehensive  than  the  other,  but 
their  centre  is  the  same.   The  irakLyyeveala  of  which 


NEW    TESTA]iIENT.  95 

Scnj)tnre  speaks,  begins  with  the  fiiKpoKoafiof;  of 
single  souls ;  but  it  does  not  end  there  ;  it  does  not 
cease  its  effectual  working  till  it  has  embraced  the 
whole  /laKpoKoa/jLo^  of  the  universe.  The  first  seat 
of  the  iraXtyyeveaia  is  the  soul  of  man  ;  but,  begin- 
ning there,  and  establishing  its  centre  there,  it  ex- 
tends in  ever  widening  circles.  And,  first,  to  his 
body ;  the  day  of  resurrection  will  be  the  day  of 
TraXtyyeveala  for  it ;  so  that  those  Fathers  had  a 
certain,  though  only  a  partial,  right,  as  many  as  in- 
terpreted the  word  at  Matt.  xix.  28,  as  though  it  had 
been  equivalent,  and  only  equivalent,  to  az^ao-Tao-t?, 
and  who,  as  a  consequence,  themselves  continually 
used  it  as  a  synonym  for  '  resurrection '  (Eusebius, 
Hist.  Ecd.  V.  1.  58  ;  Suicer,  TJies.  s.  v.).  Doubtless 
the  word  there  includes,  or  presupposes,  the  resur- 
rection, but  it  also  embraces  much  more.  Beyond 
the  day  of  resurrection,  or  it  may  be  contempora- 
neous with  it,  a  day  will  come,  when  all  nature  shall 
put  ofi"  its  soiled  work-day  garments,  and  clothe  it- 
self in  its  holy-day  attire,  the  day  of  the  "  restitu- 
tion of  all  things  "  (Acts  iii.  21) ;  of  the  new  heaven 
and  the  new  earth  (Eev.  xxi.  1) ;  the  day  of  which 
Paul  speaks,  as  one  in  expectation  of  which  all 
creation  is  groaning  and  travailing  until  now  (Rom. 
viii.  21 — 23).  Man  is  the  present  subject  of  the 
irakiyyeveala^  and  of  the  wondrous  transformation 
which  it  implies ;  but  in  that  day  it  will  have  in- 


96  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

eluded  within  its  limits  tlie  whole  world,  of  which 
man  is  the  central  figure  :  and  here  is  the  reconci- 
liation of  the  two  passages,  in  one  of  which  it  is 
spoken  of  as  pertaining  to  the  single  soul,  in  the 
other  to  the  whole  redeemed  creation.  Thej  allude 
both  to  the  same  fact,  but  in  different  e]30chs  and 
stages  of  its  development. 

But  now  to  consider  dpaKaivcoat^,  the  relation  m 
which  it  stands  to  TraXcyyevea-La,  and  the  exact  limits 
of  the  meaning  of  each.  This  word,  which  is  pecu- 
liar to  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  occurs 
there  also  only  twice  —  once  in  connexion  with  Tra- 
Xtyyevea-la  (Tit.  iii.  5),  and  again  Rom.  xii.  2 ;  but 
we  have  the  verb  dva/caLvoo),  which  also  is  an  exclu- 
sively Xew  Testament  form,  at  2  Cor.  iv.  16 ;  Col. 
iii.  10  ;  and  the  more  classical  dvaKaLvl^a),  Heb.  vi. 
6,  from  which  the  nouns,  frequent  in  the  Greek 
Fathers,  dvaKaiviaiio^  and  dvaKalvi(Ti<^^  are  more  im- 
mediatel}"  drawn ;  we  have  also  dvaveoco  (Eph.  iv. 
23) ;  all  in  the  same  uses.  It  would  be  impossible 
better  to  express  the  relation  in  which  the  two 
stand  to  each  other,  than  has  been  already  done  in 
our  Collect  for  Christmas  day,  in  which  we  pray 
"  that  we  being  regenerate,"  in  other  words,  having 
been  already  made  the  subjects  of  the  iraXiyyeveaLa, 
"  may  daily  be  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit," — may 
continually  know  the  dvaKalvwai^  IIvevfxaro<;  'Ayiou. 
In  this  Collect,  uttering,  as  so  many  others  of  them 


NEW   TESTA^IENT.  97 

do,  profound  theological  truth  in  its  most  accurate 
forms,  the  '  regeneration '  is  spoken  of  as  past,  as 
having  found  place  once  for  all,  while  the  '  renewal ' 
or  '  renovation '  is  that  which  ought  now  to  be  daily 
proceeding  —  this  avaKalvcoai^  being  that  gradual 
restoration  of  the  Divine  image,  which  is  going  for- 
ward in  him  who,  through  the  new  birth,  has  come 
under  the  transforming^  powers  of  the  world  to 
come.  It  is  called  "  the  renewal  of  the  Holy  Ghost^'' 
inasmuch  as  He  is  the  '  causa  efficiens '  by  whom 
alone  this  renewal,  this  putting  on  of  the  new  man, 
is  carried  forward. 

We  see  then,  of  the  two,  that  they  are  indisso- 
lubly  bound  together — that  the  second  is  the  follow- 
ing up,  the  consequence,  the  completion  of  the  first ; 
yet,  for  all  this,  that  they  are  not  to  be  confounded. 
The  irakiyyeveaia  is  that  great  free  act  of  God's 
mercy  and  power,  whereby  He  causes  the  sinner  to 
pass  out  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness  into  that  of 
light,  out  of  death  into  life ;  it  is  the  avwOev  'yewrj. 
drjvac  of  John  iii.  3  ;  the  jevvrjdrjvaL  i/c  ©eov  of  1 
John  V.  4,  sometimes  called,  therefore,  deoyevea-la 

^  MeTaixopcpuvaOe  ry  avaKaivdaei  tov  voos,  Itorn.  xii.  2.  The 
striking  -words  of  Seneca,  JEp.  6,  Intelligo  me  emendari  non  tan- 
tum,  sed  transfigicrari,  are  far  too  big  to  express  any  benefits 
which  he  could  have  gotten  from  his  books  of  philosophy;  they 
reach  out  after  blessings  to  be  obtained,  not  in  the  schools  of  men, 
but  only  in  the  Church  of  the  living  God. 
5 


98  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

by  Greek  theologians  ;  tlie  jevvrjOrjvac  i/c  airopa<i 
a(j)6dpTov  of  1  Pet.  i.  23.  In  it, — not  in  the  prepa- 
rations for  it,  but  in  the  act  itself, — the  subject  of 
it  is  passive,  even  as  the  child  has  nothing  to  do 
with  its  own  birth.  But  it  is  very  diiferent  as  res- 
pects the  avaKalvoxjL';.  This  is  the  gradual  conform- 
ing of  the  man  more  and  more  to  that  new  spiritual 
world  into  which  he  has  been  introduced,  and  in 
which  he  now  lives  and  moves  ;  the  restitution  of 
the  Divine  image  ;  and  in  all  this,  so  far  from  be- 
ing passive,  he  must  be  a  fellow-worker  with  God. 
That  was  '  regeneratio,'  this  is  '  renovatio.'  They 
must  not  be  separated,  but  neither  may  they  be  con- 
founded.* What  infinite  confusions,  conflicts,  scan- 
dals, obscurations  of  God's  truth  on  this  side  and 
on  that,  have  arisen  from  the  one  course  as  from  the 
other. 


§  xix. — al(T')(yv7j,  alSco^, 

Theee  was  a  time  when  the  Greek  language  pos- 
sessed only  the  word  alBa)<; ;  which  then  occupied 
the  two  regions  of  meaning  afterward  divided  be- 

^  Gerhard  {Loc.  Theoll.  xxi.  7.  113):  Renovatio,  licet  a  regene- 
ratione  proprie  et  specialiter  accept^-  distinguatiir,  individuo  ta- 
men  et  perpetuo  nexu  cum  eS,  est  conjimcta. 


NEW   TESTAATENT.  99 

tweeii  it  and  alax^vr}.  AlSoo^  bad  at  that  time  the 
same  duplicity  of  meaning  as  is  latent  in  the  Latin 
^pudor,'  in  our  own  ^  shame.'  Thus  in  Homer 
alax^^V  never  occurs,  while  sometimes,  as  II.  v. 
787,  atSfw?  is  used  on  occasions  when  alaxvvr)  would, 
in  later  Greek,  have  necessarily  been  employed : 
elsewhere  Homer  employs  alBco^  in  that  sense  which, 
at  a  later  period,  it  vindicated  as  exclusively  its  own. 
And  even  Thucydides  (i.  84),  in  a  difficult  and 
doubtful  passage  where  both  words  occur,  is  by 
many  considered  to  have  employed  them  as  equi- 
pollent and  convertible.  Generally,  however,  in 
the  Attic  period  of  the  language,  the  words  were 
not  accounted  synonymous.  Ammonius  formally 
distinguishes  them  in  a  philological,  as  the  Stoics 
in  an  ethical,  interest ;  and  almost  every  passage 
in  which  either  word  occurs  is  an  evidence  of  the 
real  difference  existing  between  them.  Yet  the 
distinction  has  not  always  been  quite  successfully 
seized. 

Thus  it  has  been  sometimes  said  that  atSco?  is 
the  shame  which  hinders  one  from  doing  a  disho- 
nourable thing ;  ala'yyvri  is  the  disgrace^  outward  or 
inward,  which  follows  on  having  done  it  (Luke  xiv. 
9).  This  distinction,  while  it  has  its  truth,  is  yet 
not  an  exhaustive  one ;  and  if  we  were  thereu23on 
to  assume  that  ala'xyv'n  was  thus  only  retrosjDective, 
the  consequence  of  things  unworthily  done,  it  would 


100  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

be  an  erroneous  one ;  ^  for  it  would  be  abundantly 
easy  to  show  that  alaxvvr}  is  continually  used  to  ex- 
press that  feeling  wbicli  leads  to  shun  what  is  un- 
worthy out  of  a  prospective  anticipation  of  disho- 
nour. Thus  one  definition  (Plat.  Def.  416)  makes 
it  <p6^o<i  iirl  TTpoaBoKia  dBo^la<; :  and  Aristotle  in- 
cludes the  future  in  his  comprehensive  definition 
{Ilhet.  ii.  6) :  eo-ro)  8?)  aiG'yyvr)^  Xuttt)  Tfc9  koX  rapa'^rj 
irepl  TO,  et?  aho^lav  (pai^vofieva  (^epetv  tmv  kukcov,  ^ 
irapovTcov^  rj  yeyovorcov,  rj  fjueWovTcov.  In  this  sense 
as  '  fuga  dedecoris '  it  is  used  Ecclus.  iv.  21 ;  by 
Plato,  Gorg.  492  a;  by  Xenophon,  Anah.  iii.  1. 10. 
In  this  last  passage,  which  runs  thus,  (f^o/Sovjuievoi.  Se 
Tov  oSov  Kol  aK0VTe<;  6/jlco<;  ol  ttoWoI  St'  alcr'^vvTjv  kol 
akXrjXwv  KOL  Kvpov  avvTjKoXovOrjcrav,  Xenophon  im- 
plies that  while  he  and  others,  for  more  reasons 
than  one,  disapproved  the  going  forward  with  Cjtus 
to  assail  his  brother's  throne,  they  yet  were  now 
ashamed  to  draw  back. 

This  much  of  truth  the  distinction  drawn  above 
possesses,  that  aiSw?  ( =  '  verecundia,'  see  Cicero, 
I^ep.  V.  4)  is  the  nobler  word  and  implies  the  nobler 
motive  :  in  it  is  implied  an  innate  moral  repugnance 

^  There  is  the  same  onesidedness,  though  exactly  on  the  other 
side,  in  Cicero's  definition  of  '  pudor,'  which  he  makes  merely  pro- 
spective :  Pudor  nietus  rerum  turpium,  et  ingenua  quaedam  timidi- 
tas,  dedecus  fugiens,  laudemque  conseetans ;  but  Ovid  writes, 
Irruit,  et  nostrum  vulgat  clamore  pudorem. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  101 

to  the  doing  of  the  dishonourable  act,  which  moral 
repugnance  scarcely  or  at  all  exists  in  the  alaxvvrj. 
Insure  the  man  restrained  only  by  ala'xyvT]  against 
the  outward  disgrace  which  he  fears  may  accom- 
panv  or  follow  his  act,  and  he  will  refrain  from  it 
no  longer.  It  is  only,  as  Aristotle  teaches,  irepl 
dSo^la?  (f)avTacrla :  its  seat,  therefore,  as  he  goes  on 
to  show,  is  not  properly  in  the  moral  sense  of  him 
that  entertains  it,  in  his  consciousness  of  a  right 
which  has  been,  or  would  be,  violated  by  his  act, 
but  only  in  his  apprehension  of  other  persons  who 
are,  or  might  be,  privy  to  its  violation.  Let  this 
apprehension  be  removed,  and  the  alax^vv  ceases  ; 
while  at'Sw?  finds  its  motive  in  its  own  moral  being, 
and  not  in  any  other ;  it  implies  reverence  for  the 
good  as  good,  and  not  merely  as  that  to  which 
honour  and  reputation  are  attached.  Thus  it  is 
often  connected  with  evXd^eia  (Heb.  xii.  28),  the 
reverence  before  God,  before  His  majesty.  His  ho- 
liness, which  will  induce  a  carefulness  not  to  offend, 
the  German  '  Scheu ; '  so  Plutarch,  Cces.  14 ;  Coiij. 
Prcec.  47 ;  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Cat.  44 ;  often  also  with 
Seo9,  as  Plato,  Euth.  126  c ;  with  evKoaiJula^  Xeno- 
phon,  Cyrojp.  viii.  1.  33 ;  with  evra^la  and  KoafiioTT]^, 
Plutarch,  Cces.  4  ;  with  a-efivorr]^,  Conj.  Prcec.  26. 
To  sum  up  all,  we  may  say  that  atS^?  would  always 
restrain  a  good  man  from  an  unworthy  act,  while 
ald^vvK)  would  sometimes  restrain  a  bad  one. 


102  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 


§  XX. — alB(t)<;,  aco^pO(7Vvrj. 

These  words  occur  together  at  1  Tim.  ii.  9 ;  tlie 
only  other  places  where  acocj^poavvT]  occurs  being 
Acts  xxvi.  25 ;  and  1  Tim.  ii.  15,  where  atSco?  and 
aw(f)poavvr]  are  urged  by  the  Apostle  as  together 
constituting  the  truest  adornment  of  a  Christian 
woman.  If  the  distinction  drawn  in  §  19  be  cor- 
rect, this  one,  wdiich  Xenophon,  {fiyrop.  viii.  1.  31) 
ascribes  to  Cyrus,  between  the  words  now  under 
consideration,  can  hardly  be  allowed  to  stand : 
hiypeu  he  alBo)  kol  aco^poavvTjv  rfjSe^  &)?  rov<;  pLeu 
alSov pbevov<i  ra  iv  tm  ^avepa>  ala'^pa  (f>evyovTa<;, 
Tou?  Se  acocf) pova<;  kol  ra  iv  ru>  a(^avel.  On  nei- 
ther side  is  it  successful,  for  as  on  the  one  hand  the 
at'Sco?  does  not  shun  merely  open  and  manifest  base- 
nesses, however  the  ala^y^v  may  do  this,  so,  on  the 
other  side,  the  point  of  the  acocppoavvrj  is  altogether 
different  from  that  here  made,  which,  though  true, 
is  yet  a  mere  accident  of  it.  The  opposite  of  aKo- 
\aaia  (Thucydides,  iii.  37),  it  is  properly  the  state 
of  an  entire  command  over  our  passions  and  desires, 
so  that  they  receive  no  further  allowance  than  that 
which  the  law  and  right  reason  admit  and  approve  ; 
Plato,  Symp.  196  c:  elvau  yap  bpLoXoyelrai  aQ)(f)po- 
avvTj  TO  Kpareiv  rjBovciyv  kol  iinOvpiLOiv :  and  in  the 


NEW   TEST  ANIENT.  103 

Cha/ronides  he  has  dedicated  a  whole  dialogue  to 
the  investigation  of  the  exact  force  of  the  word. 
Aristotle,  Hhet.  i.  9  :  aperr)  St'  rjv  7rp6<;  ra?  rjSova^ 
rod  (Tco/jLaro?  ouro)?  exovacv,  &)?  6  v6iJio<;  KeXevet:  cf. 
Plutarch,  De  Curios.  14 ;  De  Yirt  Mor.  2 ;  Gryll. 
0  :  T)  fiev  ovv  (Tco(j>poa-vv7j  IBpa')(yT7)<;  Ti<;  icrrlv  einOv- 
p,i(x)V  Koi  raft?,  dvaipovaa  fxev  Ta<i  eireicrdKrov^  koX 
7repiTTa<;,  KaipM  he  koL  /jLerpcorrjTC  Koafiovaa  ra?  dvay- 
Kala^  :  and  Diogenes  Laertius,  iii.  57.  91.  IS^o  single 
Latin  word  exactly  represents  it.  Cicero,  as  he 
avows  himself  {Tusc.  iii.  5 ;  cf.  v.  14),  renders  it 
now  by  '  temj)erantia,'  now  by  *  moderatio,'  now  by 
^modestia.'  Hwcj^poavvr]  was  a  virtue  which  as- 
sumed more  marked  prominence  in  heathen  ethics 
than  it  does  in  Christian  ;  not  because  more  value 
was  attached  to  it  there  than  with  us ;  but  partly 
because  it  was  there  one  of  a  much  smaller  com- 
pany of  virtues,  each  of  which  therefore  would  sin- 
gly attract  more  attention ;  but  also  in  part  because 
for  as  many  as  are  "  led  by  the  Spirit,"  this  condi- 
tion of  self-command  is  taken  up  and  transformed 
into  a  condition  yet  higher  still,  in  which  a  man 
does  not  command  himself,  which  is  well,  but, 
which  is  far  better  still,  is  commanded  by  God. 

In  the  passage  already  referred  to  (1  Tim.  ii.  9), 
where  it  and  al8co^  occur  together,  we  shall  best 
distinguish  them  thus,  and  the  distinction  will  be 
capable   of  further   application.     If  alSco^  is   the 


104  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

*  sliamefastness,'  ^  or  pudency,  which  shrinks  from 
overpassing  the  limits  of  womanly  reserve  and  mod- 
esty, as  well  as  from  the  dishonour  which  would 
justly  attach  thereto,  aw^poavvr)  is  that  habitual 
inner  self-government,  with  its  constant  rein  on  all 
the  passions  and  desires,  which  would  hinder  the 
temptation  to  this  from  arising,  or  at  all  events  from 
arising  in  such  strength  as  should  overbear  the 
checks  and  hindrances  which  alhca^  opposed  to  it. 

^  It  is  a  pity  that  'shamefast'  and  'sharaeftistness,'  by  which 
last  word  our  translators  rendered  cwcppoavvr)  here,  should  have 
been  corrupted  in  modern  use  to  '  shame/aci?c? '  and  *  sh^vaefaced- 
ness.^  Tlie  words  are  properly  of  the  same  formation  as  'stead- 
fast,' 'steadfastness,'  'soothfast,'  ' soothfastness,'  and  those  good 
old  English  words,  now  lost  to  us,  'rootfast,'  and  '  rootfastness.' 
As  by  '  rootfast '  our  fathers  understood  that  which  was  firm  and 
fast  by  its  root,  so  by  'shamefast'  in  like  manner,  that  which  was 
established  and  made  fast  by  (an  honourable)  shame.  To  change 
this  into  ^shamefaced'  is  to  allow  all  the  meaning  and  force  of  the 
word  to  run  to  the  surface,  to  leave  us  ethically  a  far  inferior  word. 
It  is  very  inexcusable  that  all  modern  reprints  of  the  Authorized 
Version  should  have  given  in  to  this  corruption.  So  long  as 
merely  the  spelling  of  a  word  is  concerned,  this  may  very  well  be 
allowed  to  fall  in  with  modern  use ;  we  do  not  want  them  to  print 

*  Sonne'  or  'marveile,'  when  every  body  now  spells  'son*  and 
'  marvel.'  But  when  the  true  form,  indeed  the  life,  of  a  word  is 
aflfected  by  the  alterations  which  it  has  undergone,  then  I  cannot 
but  consider  that  subsequent  editors  were  bound  to  adhere  to  the 
first  edition  of  1611,  which  should  have  been  considered  authori- 
tative and  exemplary  for  all  that  followed. 


KETV   TESTAMEXT.  105 


§  xxi. — avpw^  ekKvco. 

These  words  difier,  and  with  diflerences  not  the- 
ologically unimportant.  TTe  best  represent  these 
tJieir  differences  in  English  when  we  render  avpeip, 
'  to  drag,'  eXKveLv,  '  to  draw.'  In  avpecv,  as  in  our 
'  drag,'  there  lies  always  the  notion  of  force,  as  when 
Plutarch  {De  Lib.  Ed.  8)  speaks  of  the  headlong 
course  of  a  river,  irdvra  avpcov  koI  iravra  irapacpi- 
pcov :  and  it  will  follow,  that  where  persons,  and  not 
merely  things,  are  in  question,  it  will  involve  the 
notion  of  violence  (Acts  viii.  3  ;  xiv.  19  ;  xvii.  6). 
But  in  €\kv6lv  this  notion  of  force  or  violence  does 
not  of  necessity  lie.  That,  indeed,  such  is  often 
implied  in  it,  is  plain  enough  (Acts  xvi.  19  ;  xxi.  30 
Jam.  ii.  6  ;  and  cf.  //.  xi.  258  ;  xxiv.  52,  417 
Aristophanes,  Eqxdt.  710  ;  Euripides,  Troad.  70 
Ala^  elXK€  Kaadvhpav  13 la);  but  not  always,  any 
more  than  in  our  '  draw,'  which  we  use  of  a  mental 
and  moral  attraction,  or  in  the  Latin  Uraho,'  as 
witness  the  language  of  the  poet,  Trahit  sua  quem- 
que  voluj^tas.  Thus  Plato,  jPol.  vi.  494  e:  iav 
eXKTjrac  Trpo?  (f)L\oao(f)Lau. 

Only  by  keeping  in  mind  this  difference  which 
there  is  between  ekKveiv  and  avpecv,  can  we  vindi- 
cate from  erroneous  interpretation  two  doctrinally 
5* 


106  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

important  passages  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  The 
first  is  xii.  32  ;  "  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth, 
will  draw  all  men  nnto  me  "  (iravTa^i  e\/cvaco).  But 
how  does  a  crucified,  and  thus  an  exalted,  Saviour 
draw  all  men  unto  Him?  ]^ot  bj  force,  for  the 
will  is  incapable  of  force,  but  by  the  divine  attrac- 
tions of  His  love.  Again  He  declares  (vi.  44) : 
"  'No  man  can  come  to  Me,  except  the  Father  which 
hath  sent  Me  draw  him  "  {eXKvay  avrov).  Kow  as 
many  as  feel  bound  to  deny  any  '  gratia  irresisti- 
bilis,'  which  turns  man  into  a  mere  machine,  and 
by  which,  nolens  volens,  he  is  dragged  to  God,  must 
at  once  allow  that  this  ekKvarj  can  mean  no  more 
than  the  potent  allurements  of  love,  the  attracting 
of  men  by  the  Father  to  the  Son ;  as  at  Jeremiah 
xxxi.  3,  "  With  loving-kindness  have  I  drawn  thee  " 
{eiXKvad  ere),  with  which  compare  Cant.  i.  3. 4.  Did 
we  find  avpeiv  on  either  of  these  occasions  (not  that 
I  believe  this  would  have  been  possible),  the  asser- 
tors  of  a  '  gratia  irresistibilis '  ^  might  then  urge  the 

'  The  excellent  words  of  Augustine  on  this  last  passage,  him- 
self sometimes  adduced  as  an  upholder  of  this,  may  be  here  quoted 
{In  Ev,  Joh.  Tract,  xxvi.  4) :  Nemo  venit  ad  me,  nisi  quern  Pater 
adtraxerit.  ]S"oli  te  cogitare  invitum  trahi;  trahitur  animus  et 
amore.  Nee  timere  debemus  ne  ab  hominibus  qui  verba  perpen- 
dunt,  et  a  rebus  maxime  divinis  iutelligendis  longe  remoti  sunt,  in 
hoc  Scripturarum  sanctarum  evaugelico  verbo  forsitan  reprehenda- 
mur,  et  dicatur  nobis,  Quomodo  voluntate,  credo,  si  trahor?  Ego 
dico:    Parum  est  voluntate,  etiam  voluptate  traheris.      Porro  si 


KEW   TESTA^tlENT.  107 

passages  as  leaving  no  room  for  any  other  meaning 
but  theirs  ;  but  not  as  they  now  stand. 

In  agreement  Avith  this  which  has  been  said,  in 
eXKvecv  is  much  more  predominantly  the  sense  of 
a  drawing  to  a  certain  point,  in  avpecv  merely  of 
dragging  after  one ;  thus  Lucian  {Z>e  Merc.  Concl. 
3),  likening  a  man  to  a  fish  already  hooked  and 
dragged  through  the  water,  describes  him  as  avpo- 
fjuevov  Kol  irpo^  avd'yKTjv  ayofjievov.  JSTot  seldom 
there  will  lie  in  avpetv  the  notion  of  this  dragging 
being  upon  the  ground,  inasmuch  as  that  will  trail 
upon  the  ground  {avpfia^  avphrjv)  which  is  forcibly 
dragged  along  with  no  will  of  its  own.  A  com- 
j)arison  of  the  uses  of  the  two  words  at  John  xxi. 
6,  8,  11,  will  be  found  entirely  to  bear  out  the  dis- 
tinction which  has  been  here  traced.  .  In  the  first 
and  last  of  these  verses  ekKveiv  is  used ;  for  they 
both  express  a  draiving  of  the  net  to  a  certain 
■point  /  by  the  disciples  to  themselves  in  the  ship, 
by  Peter  to  himself  upon  the  shore.  But  at  ver.  8 
avpeiv  is  emj^loyed ;  for  nothing  is  there  intended 
but  the  drcigging  of  the  net  which  had  been  fastened 
to  the  ship,  after  it  through  the  water.     Our  Yer- 

poetae  dicere  licuit,  Trahit  sua  quemque  voluptas ;  non  necessitas, 
sed  voluptas ;  non  obligatio,  sed  delectatio;  quanto  fortius  nos 
dicere  debemus,  tralii  liominem  ad  Christum,  qui  delectatur  veri 
tate,  delectatur  beatitudine,  delectatur  justitia,  delectatur  sempi- 
terna.  vit^,  quod  totum  Christus  est? 


108  SYNOKYMS    OF   THE 

sion,  it  will  be  seen,  has  maintained  the  distinction ; 
so  too  the  German  of  De  Wette,  by  aid  of  ^  ziehen ' 
(===  iXfcvecv),  and  '  nachschlej)j)eii '  (=  o'vpeiv),  but 
neither  the  Yulgate,  nor  Beza,  which  both  have 
forms  of  '  traho '  throughout. 


§  xxii. — oXo/cXT^po?,  TeX6to9. 

These  words  occur  together,  though  their  order 
is  reversed,  at  Jam.  i.  4,  —  "j)erfect  and  entire;" 
oXoKXrjpo^;  only  once  besides  (1  Thess.  v.  23),  and 
the  substantive  oXoKXrjpia,  used  however  not  in  an 
ethical  but  a  physical  sense,  also  once.  Acts  iii.  16  ; 
cf.  Isa.  i.  6.  OXoxXTjpo^  signifies  first,  as  its  deriva- 
tion implies,  that  which  retains  all  which  was  allot- 
ted to  it  at  the  first,  which  thus  is  whole  and  entire 
in  all  its  parts,  to  which  nothing  necessary  for  its 
completeness  is  wanting.  Thus  unhewn  stones,  in- 
asmuch as  they  have  lost  nothing  in  the  process  of 
shaping  and  polishing,  are  oXoKXrjpoc  (Deut.  xxvii. 
6  ;  1  Mace.  iv.  47) ;  so  too  perfect  weeks  are  e^So/xd- 
Be<;  oXokXtjpoi  (Deut.  xvi.  9) ;  and  in  Lucian,  Philojps. 
8,  eV  6XoKXr)p(p  Bep/ian,  '  in  a  whole  skin.'  At  the 
next  step  in  the  word's  use  we  find  it  employed  to 
express  that  integrity  of  body,  with  nothing  redun- 
dant, nothing  deficient  (Lev.  xxi.  17 — 23),  which 


r 


NEW   TEST  ANIENT.  109 

was  required  of  the  Levitical  priests  as  a  condition 
of  their  ministering  at  the  altar,  which  was  needful 
also  in  the  sacrifices  they  offered.  In  both  these 
senses  Josephus  uses  it,  Antt.  iii.  12.  2  ;  as  continu- 
ally Philo,  with  whom  it  is  the  standing  word  for 
this  integrity  of  the  priests  and  of  the  sacrifice,  to 
the  necessity  of  which  he  often  recurs,  seeing  in  it, 
and  rightly,  a  mystical  significance,  and  that  these 
are  okoKkrjpoi  Ovatac  oXoKkrjpw  ©cm  :  thus  De  Vict. 
2 ;  De  Yict.  Off.  1 ;  oXoKkripov  koI  iravreKw^  fico/icov 
afieroxov :  De  Agricid.  29 ;  De  Cherub.  28 ;  cf.  Plato, 
Legg.  759  c.  The  word  in  the  next  step  of  its  his- 
tory resembles  very  much  the  '  integer '  and  '  integ- 
ritas'  of  the  Latins.  Like  these  words,  it  was 
transferred  from  bodily  to  mental  and  moral  entire- 
ness.  The  only  approach  to  this  use  of  6\6K\r]po^ 
in  the  Septuagint  is  Wisd.  xv.  3,  oXoKXijpo^  ScKaco- 
crvvrj ;  but  in  an  interesting  and  important  passage 
in  the  Dhwdrus  of  Plato  (250  c),  it  is  twice  used  to 
express  the  perfection  of  man  before  the  fall ;  I 
mean,  of  course,  the  fall  as  Plato  contemplated  it ; 
when  men  were  as  yet  oXoKkrjpoL  koX  aTraOeh  KaKcov, 
and  to  whom  as  such  oXoKkrjpa  (pdcr/jLaTa  were 
vouchsafed,  as  contrasted  with  those  weak  partial 
glimpses  of  the  Eternal  Beauty,  which  is  all  whereof 
the  greater  part  of  men  ever  now  catch  sight ;  cf. 
his  TimcBus,  44  c.  'OXoKXrjpo^,  then,  is  an  epithet 
applied  to  a  person  or  a  thing  that  is  '  omnibus  nu- 


110  SYNONYIMS    OF   THE 

meris  absolutns;'  and  the  iv  ixT^hevl  XeiTro/ievot, 
which  at  Jam.  i.  4  follows  it,  must  be  taken  as  the 
epexegesis  of  the  word. 

TeXeto9  is  a  word  of  various  applications,  but 
all  of  them  referable  to  the  reXo?,  which  is  its 
ground.  They  in  a  natural  sense  are  reXetot,  who 
are  adult,  having  reached  the  full  limit  of  stature, 
strength,  and  mental  power  appointed  to  them,  who 
have  in  these  resjDCcts  attained  their  reXo?,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  veoc  or  TratSe?,  young  men  or 
boys ;  so  Plato,  Zegg.  929  c.  St.  Paul,  when  he 
employs  the  word  in  an  ethical  sense,  does  it  con- 
tinually with  this  image  of  full  completed  growth,  as 
contrasted  with  infancy  and  childhood,  underlying 
his  use,  the  riXecoc  being  by  him  set  over  against 
the  v7]7noL  iv  Xpi.aro)  (1  Cor.  ii.  6  ;  xiv.  20  ;  Eph.  iv. 
13,  11: ;  Phil.  iii.  15  ;  Heb.  v.  14),  being  in  fact  the 
Trarepe?  of  1  John  ii.  13, 14,  as  distinct  from  the  vea- 
ina/coo  and  iraihia.  ISTor  is  this  application  of  the 
word  to  mark  the  religious  growth  and  progress  of 
men,  confined  to  the  Scripture.  The  Stoics  opposed 
the  reXeco?  in  philosophy  to  the  TrpoKOTrrcov,  with 
which  we  may  compare  1  Chron.  xxv.  8,  where  the 
reXeioL  are  set  over  against  the  fiavddvovre^.  With 
the  heathen,  those  also  were  called  TeXeuoL  who  had 
been  initiated  into  the  mysteries ;  the  same  thought 
being  at  work  here  as  in  the  giving  of  the  title  to 
reXetov  to  the  Lord's  Supper.     This  was  so  called, 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  Ill 

because  in  it  was  the  fulness  of  Christian  privilege, 
because  there  was  nothing  beyond  it ;  and  the  reXetoi, 
of  heathen  initiation  had  their  name  in  like  manner, 
because  those  mysteries  into  whicli  they  were  now 
introduced  were  the  latest  and  crowning  mysteries 
of  all. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  a  certain  ambiguity 
in  our  word  '  perfect,'  which,  indeed,  it  shares  with 
reXeto?  itself;  this,  namely,  that  they  are  both  em- 
ployed now  in  a  relative,  now  in  an  absolute  sense ; 
for  only  out  of  this  ambiguity  could  our  Lord  have 
said,  "Be  ye  therefore  perfect  (reXetot),  as  your 
Heavenly  Father  is  perfect  (reXeco^),  Matt.  v.  48  ;  cf 
xix.  21.  The  Christian  shall  be  'perfect,'  yet  not 
in  the  sense  in  which  some  of  the  sects  preach  the 
doctrine  of  perfection,  who,  preaching  it,  either 
mean  nothing  which  they  could  not  have  expressed 
by  a  word  less  liable  to  misunderstanding ;  or  mean 
something  which  no  man  in  this  life  shall  attain, 
and  which  he  who  affirms  he  has  attained  is  deceiv- 
ing himself,  or  others,  or  both.  He  shall  be  'per- 
fect,' that  is,  seeking  by  the  grace  of  God  to  be  fully 
furnished  and  firmly  established  in  the  knowdedge 
and  practice  of  the  things  of  God  (Jam.  iii.  2) ;  not 
a  babe  in  Christ  to  the  end,  "  not  always  employed 
in  the  elements,  and  infant  propositions  and  prac- 
tices of  religion,  but  doing  noble  actions,  well 
skilled  in  the  deepest  mysteries  of  faith  and  holi- 


112  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

ness."  ^  111  this  sense  Paul  claimed  to  be  reXeto?, 
even  while  almost  in  the  same  breath  he  disclaimed 
the  being  TereXeLco/juivo^  (Phil.  iii.  12,  15). 

The  distinction  then  is  j)lain ;  the  reXew?  has 
reached  his  moral  ejid,  that  for  which  he  was  intend- 
ed ;  namely,  to  be  a  man  in  Christ ;  (it  is  true  indeed 
that,  having  reached  this,  other  and  higher  ends 
open  out  before  him,  to  have  Christ  formed  in  him 
more  and  more;)  the  6x6a:X?;/909  has  preserved,  or, 
having  lost,  has  regained,  his  comj^leteness.  In  the 
oXo/cXrjpo^;  no  grace  wliicli  ought  to  be  in  a  Christian 
man  is  wanting ;  in  the  r6X6Lo<;  no  grace  is  merely  in 
its  weak  imperfect  beginnings,  but  all  have  reached 
a  certain  ripeness  and  maturity.  'OXoTeX?7?,  which 
occurs  once  in  the  Kew  Testament  (1  Thess.  v.  23 ; 
cf  Plutarch,  jPlac.  Phil.  v.  21),  forms  a  certain  con- 
necting link  between  the  two,  holding  on  to  oXokXt]- 
po9  by  its  first  half,  to  reXeto?  by  its  second. 


§  xxiii. — aT6(f>avo<;,  hioBrj^ia. 

The  fact  that  our  English  word  ^  crown  '  covers 
the  meanings  of  both  these  words,  must  not  lead  us 

^  On  the  sense  in  which  'perfection'  is  demanded  of  the  Chris- 
tian, there  is  a  discussion  at  large  by  J.  Taylor,  Doctrine  and  Prac- 
tice of  Repentance,  i.  3.  40 — 56,  from  which  these  words  in  inverted 
commas  are  drawn. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  113 

to  confound  tliem.  In  German  the  first  would  often 
be  translated  '  Kranz,'  and  only  tlie  second  '  Krone.' 
I  indeed  very  mnch  doubt  whether  anywhere  in 
classical  literature  arecjiavo^  is  nsed  of  the  kingly,  or 
imperial  crown.  It  is  the  crown  of  victory  in  the 
games,  of  civic  worth,  of  military  valour,  of  nuptial 
joy,  of  festal  gladness — woven  of  oak,  of  ivy,  of 
parsley,  of  myrtle,  of  olive, —  or  imitating  in  gold 
these  leaves  or  others  —  of  flowers,  as  of  violets  or 
roses  (see  Athenseus,  xv.  9 — 33),  but  never,  any  more 
than  '  corona '  in  Latin,  the  emblem  and  sign  of 
royalty.  The  BlaBrj/xa  was  this  (Xenophon,  Cyrqp. 
viii.  3. 13  ;  Plutarch,  Be  Frat.  Am.  18),  being  pro- 
perly a  linen  band  or  fillet,  'taenia'  or  'fascia' 
(Curtius,  iii.  3),  encircling  the  brow  ;  so  that  no  lan- 
guage is  more  common  than  TrepcTcOevai  hidhrjfia  to 
signify  the  assumption  of  royal  dignity  (Polybius, 
V.  57.  4 ;  Josephus,  A7itt  xii.  10. 1),  even  as  in  Latin 
in  like  manner  the  '  diadema '  is  alone  the  '  insigne 
regium '  (Tacitus,  Aoinal.  xv.  29). 

A  passage  bringing  out  very  clearly  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  words  occurs  in  Plutarch,  Ccbs. 
61.  It  is  the  well  known  occasion  on  which  Anto- 
nius  ofi'ers  Caesar  the  kingly  crown,  which  is  de- 
scribed as  hidhr^ixa  GTe<\>dv(p  hdcfiVT)^  Treptfre'TrXeyiMevov  : 
here  the  oTe(l>avo<;  is  only  the  garland  or  laureate 
Avreath,  with  which  the  true  diadem  was  enwoven. 
Indeed,  according  to  Cicero  {Phil.  ii.  34),  Caesar 


114  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

was  already  '  coronatiis '  ==  iaT€cl)avci)fi6vo<;  (this  lie 
would  have  been  as  consul),  when  the  offer  was 
made.  Plutarch  at  the  same  place  describes  the 
statues  of  Csesar  to  have  been,  by  those  who  would 
have  suggested  his  assumption  of  royalty,  hiahrjiia- 
cnv  avaSeSe/jiivoL  ^aa lKlicoIs .  And  it  is  out  of  the 
observance  of  this  distinction  that  the  passage  in 
Suetonius  {Goes.  79),  containing  another  version  of 
the  same  incident,  is  to  be  explained.  One  places 
on  his  statue  '  coronam  lauream  Candida  fascia  prse- 
ligatam  ; '  on  which  the  tribunes  of  the  people  com- 
mand to  be  removed,  not  the  '  corona,'  but  the  '  fas- 
cia ; '  this  being  the  diadem,  and  that  in  which  alone 
the  traitorous  suggestion  that  he  should  be  pro- 
claimed king,  was  contained. 

How  accurately  the  words  are  discriminated  in 
the  Septuagint  may  be  seen  by  comparing  in  the 
First  Book  of  Maccabees,  in  which  only  hidhr^fia 
occurs  with  any  frequency,  the  passages  in  which 
this  word  is  employed  (such  as  i.  9 ;  vi.  16 ;  viii. 
14;  xi.  13,  54;  xii.  39;  xiii.  32),  and  those  where 
crTe^avo<;  aj)pears  (iv.  5T ;  x.  29  ;  xi.  35  ;  xiii.  39  : 
cf.  2  Mace.  xiv.  4). 

In  respect  of  the  New  Testament,  there  can  be, 
of  course,  no  doubt  that  whenever  St.  Paul  speaks 
of  crowning,  and  of  the  crown,  it  is  always  the 
crown  of  the  conqueror,  and  not  of  the  king,  which 
he  has  in  his  eye.    The  two  passages,  1  Cor.  ix.  24 — 


NEW    TESTA^IENT.  115 

2G ;  2  Tim.  ii.  5,  place  tins  beyond  question ;  wliile 
the  epithet  d/jLapdpTLPo<i  applied  to  the  aTe<^avo<;  tt}^ 
B6^7]^  (1  Pet.  Y.  4),  leaves  no  doubt  about  St.  Peter's 
allusion.  If  this  is  not  so  directly  to  the  Greek 
games,  yet  still  the  contrast  which  he  tacitly  draws, 
is  one  between  the  wreaths  of  heaven  which  never 
fade,  and  the  garlands  of  earth  which  lose  their 
brightness  and  freshness  so  soon.  At  Jam.  i.  12  ; 
Rev.  ii.  10  ;  iii.  11 ;  iv.  4,  it  is  more  probable  that  a 
reference  is  not  intended  to  these  Greek  games ;  the 
alienation  from  which  as  idolatrous  and  profane  was 
so  deep  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  (Josephus,  A7itt. 
XV.  8.  1 — 4),  aud  no  doubt  also  of  the  Jewish  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  that  an  image  drawn  from  the 
rewards  of  these  games  would  have  been  to  them 
rather  repulsive  than  attractive.  Yet  there  also  the 
arejiavo^^  or  the  are^avo^  r?)?  fa)%,  is  the  emblem, 
not  of  royalty,  but  of  highest  joy  and  gladness,  of 
glory  and  immortality. 

We  may  feel  the  more  confident  that  in  these 
last  passages  from  the  Apocalypse  St.  John  did  not 
intend  Mngly  crowns,  from  the  circumstance  that  on 
three  occasions,  where  beyond  a  doubt  he  does  mean 
such,  SidSTj/jLa  is  the  word  which  he  employs  (Rev. 
xii.  3 ;  xiii.  1  [cf.  xvii.  9,  10,  al  eirra  Ke(j>aXal  .  .  . 
^aaiXels  eirrd  elatv']  ;  xix.  12).  In  this  last  verse  it 
is  fitly  said  of  Him  who  is  King  of  kings  and  Lord 
of  lords,  that  "  on  His  head  were  many  crowns  " 


116  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

{SiaSrifiara  ttoWo)  ;  an  expression  wMch,  witS  sill 
its  grandeur,  we  find  it  hard  to  realize,  so  long  as 
we  picture  to  our  mind's  eye  sucli  crowns  as  at  the 
present  monarchs  wear,  but  intelligible  at  once 
when  we  contemplate  them  as  diadems,  that  is,  nar- 
row fillets  bound  about  the  brow,  such  as  hiahrjiMara 
will  imply.  These  "  many  diadems  "  will  then  be 
the  tokens  of  the  many  royalties  —  of  earth,  of  hea- 
ven, and  of  hell  (Phil.  ii.  10)  —  which  are  his  ;  roy- 
alties once  usurped  or  assailed  by  the  Great  Hed 
Dragon,  the  usurper  of  Christ's  dignity  and  honour, 
described  therefore  with  his  seven  diadems  as  well 
(xiii.  1),  but  now  openly  and  for  ever  assumed  by 
Him  to  whom  they  rightfully  belong ;  just  as,  to 
compare  earthly  things  with  heavenly,  we  are  told 
that  when  Ptolemy,  king  of  Egypt,  entered  Antioch 
in  triumph,  he  set  two  crowns  {hiahrjiJiaTa)  on  his 
head,  the  crown  of  Asia,  and  the  crown  of  Egypt 
(1  Mace.  xi.  13). 

The  only  place  where  crre^ai^o?  might  seem  to 
be  used  of  a  kingly  crown  is  Matt,  xxvii.  29,  with 
its  parallels  in  the  other  Gospels,  where  the  weaving 
of  the  crown  of  thorns  {arecpavo^  aKdv6ivo<^)^  and 
placing  it  on  the  Saviour's  head,  is  evidently  a 
part  of  that  blasphemous  caricature  of  royalty 
which  the  Poman  soldiers  enact.  But  woven  of 
such  materials  as  it  was,  probably  of  the  juncus 
Qnarinus.  or  of  the  lycium  spinosimi,  it  is  evident 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  117 

that  hidhrjfjia  could  not  be  applied  to  it;  and  tlie 
word,  therefore,  which  was  fittest  in  respect  of  the 
material  whereof  it  was  composed,  takes  place  of 
that  which  would  have  been  the  fittest  in  respect 
of  the  purj)ose  for  which  it  was  intended. 


§  xxiv. — TrXeove^la.  cpcXapyvpla. 

Between  these  two  words  the  same  distinction 
exists  as  between  our  ^  covetousness '  and  *  avarice,' 
or  as  between  the  German  '  Habsucht '  and  '  Geiz.' 
TLXeove^ia  is  the  more  active  sin,  (pcXapyvpla  the 
more  passive :  the  first  seeks  rather  to  grasp  what 
it  has  not,  and  in  this  way  to  have  more/  the  second, 
to  retain,  and,  by  accumulating,  to  multiply  that 
which  it  already  has.  The  first,  in  its  methods  of 
acquiring,  will  be  often  bold  and  aggressive  ;  even 
as  it  may,  and  often  will  be  as  free  in  scattering  and 
squandering,  as  it  was  eager  and  unscrupulous  in 
getting ;  '  rapti  largitor,'  as  is  well  imagined  in  the 
Sir  Giles  Overreach  of  Massinger.  Consistently 
with  this  we  find  TrXeoveKTrj^  joined  with  apira^  (1 
Cor.  V.  10) ;  irXeove^ia  with  jBapvTT)^  (Plutarch,  Arist. 
3)  ;  and  in  the  plural,  with  KXoirai  (Mark  vii.  22) ; 
with  aSiKLac  (Strabo,  vii.  4.  6)  ;  with  cf)LXovecKiac 
(Plato,  Zegg.  iii.  GTT  I) ;    and  the  sin  defined  by 


118  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

Tlieocloret :  7;  rod  irXelovos  €(f)€cr(,<i,  kol  77  rcov  ov  irpoa- 
TjKovroDv  dpirajT).  But,  wliile  it  is  tlius  witli  TrXeo- 
i/ef/a,  (fiLXapryupla  on  the  other  hand  will  be  often 
cautious  and  timid,  and  will  not  necessarily  have 
cast  off  the  outward  appearances  of  righteousness. 
Thus,  the  Pharisees  were  <j)L\dpjvpoL  (Luke  xvi.  14) ; 
this  was  not  irreconcilable  with  the  maintenance 
of  the  outward  shows  of  holiness,  which  the  TrXeo- 
ve^la  would  evidently  have  been. 

Cowley,  in  the  delightful  prose  which  he  has 
mixed  up  with  his  verse,  draws  this  distinction 
strongly  and  well  {Essay  Y,  Of  Avarice),  though 
Chaucer  had  done  the  same  before  him  in  his  Pe?'- 
sones  Tale:  "There  are,"  says  Cowley,  "two  sorts 
of  avarice ;  the  one  is  but  of  a  bastard  kind,  and 
that  is  the  rapacious  ai)petite  for  gain ;  not  for  its  own 
sake,  but  for  the  pleasure  of  refunding  it  immedi- 
ately through  all  the  channels  of  pride  and  luxury  ; 
the  other  is  the  true  kind,  and  ]_3roperly  so  called, 
which  is  a  restless  and  unsatiable  desire  of  riches, 
not  for  any  farther  end  or  use,  but  only  to  hoard  and 
preserve,  and  perpetually  increase  them.  The  cov- 
etous man  of  the  first  kind  is  like  a  greedy  ostrich, 
which  devours  any  metal,  but  it  is  with  an  intent 
to  feed  upon  it,  and,  in  effect,  it  makes  a  shift  to 
digest  and  excern  it.  The  second  is  like  the  foolish 
chough,  which  loves  to  steal  money  only  to  hide  it." 

There  is  another  and  more  important  point  of 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  110 

view,  from  which  irXeove^la  may  be  regarded  as  the 
wider,  larger  term,  the  genus,  of  which  cl)iXapyvpLa 
is  the  species ;  this  last  being  the  love  of  money, 
while  TrXeove^ia  is  the  drawing  and  snatching  to 
himself,  on  the  sinner's  part,  of  the  creature  in  every 
form  and  kind,  as  it  lies  out  of  and  beyond  himself; 
the  '  indigentia '  of  Cicero  :  ( Indigentia  est  libido 
inexplebilis  :  Tiisc.  iv.  9.  21).  For  this  distinction 
between  the  words  compare  Augustine,  Enarr.  in 
Ps.  cxviii.  35,  36 ;  and  Bengel's  j)rofound  explana- 
tion of  the  fact,  that,  in  the  enumeration  of  sins,  St. 
Paul  so  often  unites  irXeove^ia  with  sins  of  the  flesh ; 
as  at  1  Cor.  v.  11 ;  Eph.  v.  3,  5 ;  Col.  iii.  5 :  Solet 
autem  jungere  cum  impuritate  irXeove^iav,  nam 
homo  extra  Deum  quoerit  pabulum  in  creatura  ma- 
teriali,  vel  per  voluptatem,  vel  -pev  avaritiam ;  bo- 
num  alienum  ad  se  redigit.  But,  expressing  much, 
Bengel  has  not  expressed  all.  The  connexion  be- 
tween these  two  provinces  of  sin  is  deeper,  is  more 
intimate  still ;  and  this  is  witnessed  in  the  fact,  that 
not  merely  is  irXeove^ia,  as  covetousness,  joined  to 
sins  of  impurity,  but  the  word  is  sometimes  in 
Scripture,  continually  by  the  Greek  Fathers  (see 
Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v.),  employed  to  designate  these  sins 
themselves  ;  even  as  the  root  out  of  which  they 
alike  grow,  namely,  the  fierce  and  ever  fiercer  long- 
ing of  the  creature  which  has  turned  from  God,  to 
fill  itself  with  the  inferior  objects  of  sense,  is  one 


120  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

and  the  same.  Regarded  thus,  irXeove^la  has  a 
much  wider  and  deeper  sense  than  (fiCkapyvpla. 
Take  the  sublime  commentary  on  the  word  which 
Plato  {Gorg.  493)  supplies,  where  he  likens  the  de- 
sire of  man  to  the  sieve  or  pierced  vessel  of  the 
Danaids,  which  they  were  ever  filling,  but  might 
never  fill ;  ^  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  the 
whole  longing  of  the  creature,  as  it  has  itself  aban- 
doned God,  and  by  a  just  retribution  is  abandoned 
by  Him,  to  stay  its  hunger  with  the  swines'  husks, 
instead  of  the  children's  bread  which  it  has  left,  is 
contained  in  this  word. 


§  XXV. jBoGKCO,  TTOLfJLaLVQ). 

While  both  these  words  are  often  employed  in 
a  figurative  and  spiritual  sense  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  at  1  Chron.  xii.  16 ;  Ezek.  xxxiv.  3 ;  Ps. 
Ixxvii.  72  ;  Jer.  xxiii.  2  ;  and  TrotfiaLvecv  often  in  the 
'New ;  the  only  occasions  in  the  latter,  where  ^6<tk6lv 

*  It  ia  evident  that  tlie  same  compai'ison  had  occurred  to  Shak- 
speare : 

"  The  cloyed  will, 
That  satiate  yet  unsatisfied  desire, 
That  tub  both  fill'd  and  running." 

Ot/mbeline,  Act  L  Sc.  Y. 


NEW  testa:sient.  121 

is  BO  used,  are  Joliii  xxi.  15,  17.  There  our  Lord, 
giving  to  St.  Peter  liis  thrice  repeated  commission 
to  feed  liis  "  lambs  "  (ver.  15),  his  "  sheep  "  (ver.  16), 
and  again  his  ^- sheep"  (ver.  17),  uses,  on  the  fii'st 
occasion,  jSoo-Ke,  on  tlie  second,  Trolfjuaive,  and  retm*ns 
again  to  /36a k6  on  the  third.  This  return,  on  the 
third  and  Last  repetition  of  the  charge,  to  the  word 
employed  on  the  first,  has  been  a  strong  argument 
with  some  for  the  indifierence  of  the  w^ords.  They 
have  nrged,  and  with  a  certain  show  of  reason,  that 
Christ  conld  not  have  h.2.6.  progressive  aspects  of  the 
pastoral  work  in  His  intention,  nor  have  purposed 
to  indicate  them  here,  else  He  would  not  have  come 
back  in  the  end  to  /36(jA:e,  the  same  word  with  which 
He  began.  Yet  I  cannot  believe  the  variation  of 
the  words  to  have  been  without  a  motive,  any  more 
than  the  changes,  in  the  same  verses,  from  ajairav 
to  (J}lX€cv,  from  apvla  to  irpo/SaTa.  It  is  true  that 
our  Version,  rendering  ^oaKe  and  iroiiialve  alike  by 
"  Feed,"  has  not  attempted  to  reproduce  the  varia- 
tion, any  more  than  the  Yulgate,  which,  on  each 
occasion,  has  '  Pasce ; '  nor  do  I  j^erceive  any  re- 
sources of  language  by  which  either  the  Latin 
Yersion  or  our  own  could  have  hel23ed  themselves 
here.  It  might  be  more  possible  in  German,  by 
aid  of  '  weiden '  (=  (BoaKeLv),  and  '  hiiten '  (=  iroi- 
fjbaiveiv) ;  De  Wette,  liowevcr,  has  '  weiden '  through- 
out. » 
6 


122  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

The  distinction,  altliongli  thus  not  capable  of 
being  easily  reproduced  in  all  languages,  is  veiy  far 
from  fanciful,  is  indeed  a  most  real  one.  ^ocr/cw, 
the  same  word  as  the  Latin  '  pasco,'  is  simply  '  to 
feed  : '  but  Trot/nalpco  involves  much  more ;  the  whole 
office  of  the  shepherd,  the  entire  leading,  guiding, 
guarding,  folding  of  the  flock,  as  well  as  the  finding 
of  nourishment  for  it ;  thus  Lampe  :  Hoc  symbolum 
totum  regimen  ecclesiasticum  comprehendit ;  and 
Bengel :  ^oo-Keiv  est  pars  7ov  Troi/nalveiv.  Out  of  a 
sense  continually  felt,  of  a  shadowing  forth  in  the 
shepherd's  work  of  the  highest  ministries  of  men 
for  the  weal  of  their  fellows,  and  of  the  peculiar  fit- 
ness which  this  image  has  to  set  forth  the  same,  it 
has  been  often  transferred  to  their  office,  who  are, 
or  should  be,  the  faithful  guides  and  guardians  of 
the  people  committed  to  their  charge.  Kings,  in 
Homer,  are  iroifjueve^;  XaOiv :  cf.  2  Sam.  v.  2 ;  vii.  Y. 
ISTay  more,  in  Scripture  God  Himself  is  a  Shepherd 
(Isa.  xl.  11) ;  and  David  can  use  no  words  which 
shall  so  well  express  his  sense  of  the  Divine  protec- 
tion as  these  :  Kvpto^  iroLfiaLvei  fie  (Ps.  xxiii.  1) ; 
nor  does  the  Lord  take  anywhere  a  higher  title  than 
6  TTOLfiriv  6  KaX6<i  (John  x.  11 ;  cf.  1  Pet.  v.  4,  o  ap- 
XC'rrotfj.rjv :  Heb.  xiii.  20,  6  fieya<;  Troifxrjv  rcov  TrpofBd- 
Tcov;  nor  give  a  higher  than  that  implied  in  this 
word  to  his  ministers.  Compare  the  sublime  pas- 
sage in  Philo,  De  Agrioul.  12,  beginning:    oi/to) 


KEW    TESTAilEAT.  128 

jxevTOL  TO  iroLfiaiveiV  iarlv  dyadbv,  ware  ov  /Sa- 
(jiXevcn  fxovov  koX  ao(f)OL<;  apSpdac,  Koi  "^v^al^;  re- 
\eia  KeKaOapjJLevaLS-j  dXka  KaX  Oew  tw  TravrjjejJLOVL 
hiKalw^  dvarlOeTai '.  and  also  the  three  sections  pre- 
ceding. 

Still,  it  may  be  asked,  if  iroLfxalveLv  be  thus  the 
higher  Trord,  and  if  irolfjiaLve  was  therefore  superadd- 
ed upon  /36aK6,  because  it  was  so,  and  implied  so 
many  further  ministries  of  care  and  tendance,  why 
does  it  not  aj^pear  in  the  last,  which  must  be  also 
the  most  solemn,  commission  given  by  the  Lord  to 
Peter  ?  how  are  we  to  account,  if  this  be  true,  for 
his  returning  to  jSoaxe  again  ?  I  cannot  doubt  that 
in  Stanley's  Sermons  and  Essays  on  the  Aijostolical 
Age,  p.  138,  the  right  answer  is  given.  The  lesson, 
in  fact,  which  we  learn  from  this  His  coming  back 
to  the  ^oaKe  with  which  Pie  had  begun,  is  a  most 
important  one,  and  one  which  the  Church,  and  all 
that  bear  rule  in  the  Church,  have  need  diligently 
to  lay  to  heart ;  this  namely,  that  whatever  else  of 
discij^line  and  rule  may  be  superadded  thereto,  still, 
the  feeding  of  the  flock,  the  finding  for  them  of 
spiritual  nourishment,  is  the  first  and  last ;  nothing 
else  Avill  supply  the  room  of  this,  nor  may  be  allow- 
ed to  put  this  out  of  its  foremost  and  most  important 
place.  How  often,  in  a  false  ecclesiastical  system, 
the  preaching  of  the  word  loses  its  pre-eminence  ; 
the  I36a/c€iv  falls  into  the  background,  is  swallowed 


124  SYKONYMS    OF   THE 

up  in  the  Trot/jiaLveLv,  which  presently  becomes  no 
true  Troifiaiveiv^  because  it  is  not  a  /SoaKSLv  as  well, 
but  such  a  '  shepherding '  rather  as  God's  Word,  by 
the  prophet  Ezeldel,  has  denounced  (xxxiv.  2,  3,  8, 
10;  cf.  Zech.  xiii.  15—17;  Matt,  xxiii.). 


§  xxvi. — ffyXo?,  (f)96vo<;. 

These  words  are  often  joined  together ;  they  are 
so  by  St.  Paul,  Gal.  v.  20,  21 ;  by  Clemens  Koma- 
Jius,  1  ^p.  ad  Cor.  3,  4,  5  ;  and  by  classical  writers 
as  well ;  as,  for  instance,  by  Plato,  Phil.  4:7  e  ;  Legcj. 
679  G ;  Menex.  212  a.  Still,  there  are  differences 
between  them ;  and  this  first,  that  f7}Xo9  is  a  fxiaov, 
being  used  sometimes  in  a  good  (as  John  ii.  17; 
Kom.  x.  2 ;  2  Cor.  ix.  2),  sometimes,  and  in  Scripture 
oftener,  in  an  evil  sense  (as  Acts  v.  17;  Pom.  xiii. 
13 ;  Gal.  v.  20 ;  Jam.  iii.  14) ;  while  ^66vo<;  is  not 
capable  of  a  good,  but  is  used  always  and  only  in 
an  evil  signification.  When  ^r;Xo9  is  taken  in  good 
part,  it  signifies  the  honourable  emulation,  with  the 
consequent  imitation,  of  that  w^hich  presents  itself 
to  the  mind  as  excellent;  ^77X09  twv  dplarcov,  Lucian, 
Adv.  Indoct.  17 ;  ?7}\o9  Kai  ixifxrja-i^^  Herodian,  ii.  4 ; 
^rfKayrr]^  koX  fjiLfjLr]Tr)<;,  vi.  8.  It  is  the  Latin  *  semula- 
tiOj'  in  vv^hich  nothing  of  envy  is  of  necessity  in- 


NEW   TESTx\MEXT.  125 

eluded,  liowever  it  is  possible  tliat  sncli  may  find 
place;  the  German  ^^N'acbeiferung,'  as  distinguished 
from  '  Eifersucht.'  The  verb  ^  semulor,'  as  is  well 
known,  finely  expresses  the  distinction  of  worthy 
and  unworthy  emulation,  governing  an  accusative 
in  cases  where  the  first,  a  dative  where  the  second, 
is  intended. 

By  Aristotle  {Rhet.  ii.  11)  JtJXo?  is  employed  ex- 
clusively in  this  nobler  sense,  to  signify  the  active 
emulation  which  grieves,  not  that  another  has  the 
good,  but  that  itself  has  it  not;  and  which,  not 
stopping  here,  seeks  to  make  the  wanting  its  own, 
and  in  this  respect  is  contrasted  by  him  with  envy : 
'iaTi  t,r\\o<^  XvTTT]  Tt?  eirl  (paivo/ievy  Trapovaia  aya6a)V 
ivTi/jicov,  ....  ov^  ore  aXXw,  aXX  on  ov-^i  kul  avrS 

icTTL'     Bio     KOl     i7rLeLK€<i     iaTLV    6    ^rj\o<^^    KoX    eTTieCKOJV' 

TO  Be  (pdovelvj  (pavXop,  koX  ^av\(ov.  Cf.  Jerome, 
Exp.  in  Gal.  V.  20 :  f?}Xo9  et  in  bonam  partem  accipi 
potest,  quum  quis  nititur  ea  quo3  bona  sunt  semulari. 
Invidia  vero  aliena  felicitate  torquetur ;  and  again. 
In  Gal.  iv.  17 :  ^mulantur  bene,  qui  cum  videant 
in  aliquibus  esse  gratias,  dona,  virtutes,  ipsi  tales 
esse  desiderant.  (Ecumenius :  earu  ^rj\o<;  Kivr]aL<^ 
a/tu^?}?  ivdovcn(oB7j<^  eiTi  rt,  fxerd  tcvo<;  d(f}o/jiotcoa€0)<; 
Tov  7r/309  o  rj  aTTOuBrj  iarc. 

But  it  is  only  too  easy  for  this  zeal  and  honour- 
able rivalry  to  degenerate  into  a  meaner  jDassion,  a 
fact  which  is  strikingly  attested  in  the  Latin  word 


126  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

'  simultaSj'  connected,  as  Doderlein  {jMt.  Synon. 
vol.  iii.  p.  72)  shows,  not  with  '  siraulare,'  but  with 
'simul;'  those  who  together  aim  at  the  same  object 
being  in  danger  not  merely  of  being  competitors, 
bnt  enemies;  just  as  aficWa^  wliich  however  has 
kept  its  more  honourable  use  (Plutarch,  Anhn.  an 
COT]),  ajpjp.  pej.  3),  is  connected  with  aixa.  These 
degeneracies  which  wait  so  near  upon  emulation, 
may  assume  two  shapes ;  either  that  of  a  desire  to 
make  war  upon  the  good  which  it  beholds  in 
another,  and  thus  to  trouble  that  good,  and  make  it 
less  ;  therefore  we  find  fr}\o9  and  ept?  continually 
joined  together  (Rom.  xiii.  13  ;  2  Cor.  xii.  20  ;  Gal. 
V.  20 ;  Clem.  Eom.  1  JEj).  3,  6) ;  or,  where  there  is 
not  vigour  and  energy  enough  to  attempt  the  mctking 
of  it  less,  there  may  be  at  least  the  wishing  of  it 
less.  And  here  is  the  point  of  contact  which  \^riKo<^ 
has  with  <^Qovo^  :  thus  Plato,  Menex.  242  a :  irpcorov 
fx6v  f^Xo?,  cLTTo  ^rjXov  Be  (j)d6vo^  '.  tlic  lattcr  being 
essentially  passive,  as  the  former  is  active  and  ener- 
gic.  We  do  not  find  (f)66vo^  in  the  comprehensive 
catalogue  of  sins  at  ]\Iark  vii.  21,  22 ;  its  place  be- 
ing there  supplied  by  a  circumlocution,  6(j)6aX/j,6(; 
irovr)p6^^  but  one  putting  itself  in  connexion  with 
the  Latin  '  invidia,'  which  is  derived,  as  Cicero  ob- 
serves, '  a  nimis  intuendo  fortunam  alterius ; '  cf. 
Matt.  XX.  15  ;  and  1  Sam.  xviii.  9  :  "  Saul  eyed^'' 
i.  e.  envied  "  David."     Odovos  is  the  meaner  sin, 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  127 

being  merely  displeasure  at  anotlier's  goods  *  (^vittj 
iir  aX\oTploi<;  ayaOol^^  as  tlie  Stoics  defined  it, 
Diogenes  Laertius,  vii.  Q^.  Ill),  with  the  desire 
that  these  may  be  less ;  and  this,  quite  apart  from 
any  hope  that  thereby  its  own  will  be  more  (Aris- 
totle, Ichet.  ii.  10).  He  that  feels  it,  does  not  feel 
with  it  any  impulse  or  longing  to  raise  himself  to 
the  level  of  him  whom  he  envies,  but  only  to  de- 
press the  other  to  his  own."  When  the  victories  of 
Miltiades  would  not  suffer  the  youthful  Themistocles 
to  sleep  (Plutarch,  Them.  3),  here  was  frjXo?,  that 
is,  in  its  nobler  form,  for  it  was  such  as  prompted 
him  to  worthy  actions,  and  would  not  let  him  rest 
till  he  had  set  a  Salamis  of  his  own  against  the  Ala- 
rathon  of  his  great  predecessor.  But  it  was  cpOovog 
which  made  that  Athenian  citizen  to  be  weary  of 
liearing  Aristides  evermore  styled  "  The  Just "  (Plu- 
tarch, Arist,  7) ;  and  this  his  (j)66vo^  contained  no 
impulses  moving  him  to  strive  for  himself  after  the 
justice  which  he  envied  in  another.     See  on  this 

^  Augustine's  definition  of  <pQ6vos  {Exp.  in  Gal.  v.  21)  is  not 
quite  satisfactory:  Invidia  vero  dolor  animi  est,  cum  indignus  vi- 
detur  aliquis  assequi  etiam  quod  non  appetebas.  This  would 
rather  be  vefietri^  and  vefieaav  in  the  ethical  terminology  of  Aris- 
totle (Ethic.  Nic.  ii.  7.  15;  PJiet.  2.  9). 

^  On  the  likenesses  and  differences  between  ix7(tos  and  (p96vo9, 
see  Plutarch's  graceful  little  essay,  full  of  subtle  analysis  of  the 
human  heart,  De  Invidid  et  Odio. 


128  SYNONY]MS    OF   THE 

subject  further  tlie  beautiful  remarks  of  Plutarch, 
Be  Prof.  Virt  14. 


§  xxvii. — ^(orj,  ^LO^. 

The  Latin  language  and  the  English  are  alike 
poorer  than  the  Greek,  in  having  but  one  word,  the 
Latin  '  vita,'  the  English  '  life,'  to  express  these  two 
Greek.  There  would,  indeed,  be  no  comparative 
poverty  here,  if  ^wt]  and  /5i09  were  merely  dupli- 
cates ;  but,  covering  as  they  do  very  different  spaces 
of  meaning,  it  is  certain  that  we,  having  but  one 
word  for  them  both,  mnst  use  this  one  in  very  di- 
verse senses  ;  it  is  possible  that  by  this  equivocation 
we  may,  without  being  aware  of  it,  conceal  very 
real  and  important  differences  from  ourselves  ;  for, 
indeed,  there  is  nothing  so  potent  to  do  this  as  the 
equivocal  use  of  a  word. 

The  true  antithesis  of  ^cotj  is  Odvaro^  (Eom.  viii. 
88 ;  2  Cor.  v.  4 ;  cf.  Jer.  viii.  3  ;  Sirac.  xxx.  17 ; 
Plato,  Zegff.  xii.  944  c),  as  of  the  verb  ^rjv,  airoOvrj^ 
(TKeiv  (Matt.  XX.  38  ;  1  Tim.  v.  6  ;  Eev.  i.  18  ;  cf  II. 
xxiii.  70  ;  Herodotus,  i.  31 ;  Plato,  Plicedo^  71  d : 
ovK  evavTioy  cj)rj^  to)  ^yv  to  reOvdvai  ehat)  ;  fw/j,  in 
fact,  being  very  nearly  connected  with  dco,  drun^  to 
breathe  the  breath  of  life,  which  is  the  necessary 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  129 

condition  of  living,  and,  as  sucli,  is  involved  in  like 
manner  in  irvevfia  and  '^v)(r). 

But,  while  fw^J  is  thus  life  intensive  ('  vita  qna 
vivimus  ' ),  /3/o?  is  life  extensive  ('  vita  quam  vivi- 
nins  ' ),  the  period  or  duration  of  life  ;  and  then, 
in  a  secondary  sense,  the  means  by  which  that  life 
is  sustained ;  and  thirdly,  the  manner  in  which  that 
life  is  spent.  Examples  of  the  nse  of  ^/o?  in  all 
these  senses  the  Xew  Testament  supplies.  Thus  it 
is  used  as  — 

a,  the  j)eriod  or  duration  of  life  ;  1  Pet.  iv.  3, 
'X^povo^  rov  plov :  cf.  Job.  x.  20,  /S/o?  rov  xpovov :  PlU' 
tarch,  De  JLih.  Ed.  17 :  o-Tiyixi]  y^povov  7rd<;  6  ^io<;  iari. 

13,  the  means  of  life,  or  '  living,'  E  Y. ;  Mark 
xii.  44 ;  Luke  viii.  43  ;  xv.  12  ;  1  John  iii.  17,  rov 
Plov  rod  KocTfjLov :  cf.  Plato,  Gorg.  486  d;  Legg.  936 
c  ;  Aristotle,  Hist.  Anim.  ix.  23.  2 ;  and  often,  but 
not  always,  these  means  of  life,  with  an  under  sense 
of  largeness  and  abundance. 

7',  the  manner  of  life  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  2  ;  so  Plato, 
Pol.  344  e :  ^iov  hia'yooyr) :  and  Plutarch  very  nobly 
{De  Is.  et  Os.  1)  ;  rov  Se  ytvooaKeLV  ra  oura,  Kal  cppO' 
velv  d(f)atpe6ivTo<;j  ov  /Slov  dWd  ')(^p6vov  [o2/xat]  elvai 
r')]v  dOavaalav '.  and  De  Lib.  Ed.  7 :  TeTa<yiJievo<^  /3io<; : 
Josephus,  A^itt.  V.  10.  1 ;  with  which  compare  Au- 
gustine {De  Trin.  xii.  11) :  Cujus  vit^e  sit  quisque ; 
id  est,  qiLomodo  agat  hmc  tenvporalia,  quam  vitam 
Grssci  non  i^w-qv  sed  jBiov  vocant. 


130  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

From  this  last  use  of  yS/o?,  as  the  manner  of  life, 
there  is  often  an  ethical  sense  inhering  in  it,  which, 
in  classical  Greek  at  least,  fco?;  does  not  possess. 
Thus  Aristotle,  according  to  Ammonius,  could  draw 
the  following  distinction  between  the  words ;  ySio? 
iarl  XojiKrj  ^(dyj  :  Ammonius  himself  affirming  /3<o9 
to  be  never,  except  incorrectly,  applied  to  the  exist- 
ence of  plants  or  animals,  but  only  to  the  lives  of 
men. '  I  know  not  how  he  can  reconcile  this  state- 
ment with  such  passages  as  these  from  Aristotle, 
Hist.  Anim.  i.  1.  15 ;  ix.  8.  1 ;  unless,  indeed,  he 
would  include  him  in  his  censure.  Still,  the  dis- 
tinction which  he  is  here  somewhat  too  absolutely 
asserting,  must  be  acknowledged  as  a  real  one ;  it 
displays  itself  with  great  clearness  in  our  words 
'  zoology '  and  '  biography.'  We  speak,  on  the  one 
hand,  of  '^6>6»logy,'  for  animals  have  the  vital  prin- 
ciple ;  they  live,  as  well  as  men ;  and  they  arc 
capable  of  being  classed  and  described  in  relation 
to  the  different  workings  of  this  natural  life  of 
theirs  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  speak  of  *  lio- 
graphy ; '  for  men  not  merely  live,  but  they  lead 
lives,  lives  in  which  there  is  that  moral  distinction 
between  one  and  another  which  may  make  them 
well  worthy  to  be  recorded.     Out  of  this  it  will  fol- 

^  See  on  this  point,  and  generally  on  these  two  synon^'iiis,  Vo- 
mel,  Synon.  Worterhuch,  p.  168  sq. 


KEW    TESTA^IEXT.  131 

low,  tliat,  wliile  Odvaro^  and  fo)?)  constitute,  as  was 
observed  above,  the  true  antithesis,  vet  tliej  do  so 
only  so  long  as  both  are  jphysicaUy  contemplated. 
So  soon  as  a  moral  idea  is  introduced,  the  antithesis 
is  not  between  Odvaro^  and  fo)?/,  but  Odvarofi  and 
/S/09  :  thus  Xenophon  {Resjj.  Laced.  9.  1) :  rov  Ka- 
Xbv  Odvarov  dvrl  rod  ala')(^pov  ^iov.  The  two  great 
chapters  with  which  the  Gorgias  of  Plato  concludes 
(82,  S3),  are  alone  sufficient  to  bring  plainly  before 
tlie  consciousness  the  full  distinction  between  the 
words  themselves,  as  also  between  those  derived 
from  them. 

But  this  being  the  case,  (3m.  and  not  fo)?;,  being 
thus  shown  to  be  the  ethical  word  in  classical  anti- 
quity, a  thoughtful  reader  of  Scripture  might  very 
well  inquire  with  something  of  ^^erplexity,  how  it 
is  to  be  explained  that  there  all  is  reversed  —  fwr; 
being  certainly  in  it  the  nobler  word,  belonging  to 
the  innermost  circle  of  those  terms  whereby  are 
expressed  the  highest  gifts  of  God  to  his  creatures ; 
so  that,  while  /5/c9  has  there  no  such  noble  use,  but 
rather  the  contrary  —  for  we  find  it  in  such  associa- 
tions as  these,  i)hovoX  rod  (Biov  (Luke  viii.  14),  irpay- 
fjLarelai  rov  ^lov  (2  Tim.  ii.  4),  dXa^ovela  rov  ^iov 
(1  John  ii.  16)  —  fo)?},  on  the  other  hand,  is  continu- 
ally used  in  the  very  noblest  connexion ;  aT£(f)avo<; 
rri^  fo)?;?  (Eev.  ii.  10),  I3l/3\o<;  t/}?  fo)?;?  (iii.  5),  fo)^ 
Kol  eva-ejSeia  (2  Pet.  1.  3),  ^coy  koi  cKpOapcria  (2  Tim. 


132  SYNOXYMS    OF   THE 

i.  10),  ^0)7}  Tov  Qeov  (Epli.  iv.  18),  fo)?)  alcopio^  (Matt. 
xix.  16)  ; '  or  it  may  be  simply  fo)?}  (Matt.  vii.  li, 
and  often),  to  express  the  highest  blessedness  of  the 
creature. 

A  little  reflection  will  siij^ply  the  answer.  Re- 
vealed religion,  and  it  alone,  puts  death  and  sin  iii 
closest  connexion,  declares  them  the  necessary  cor- 
relatives one  of  the  other  (Gen.  i. — iii. ;  Rom.  v.  12), 
and,  as  an  involved  consequence,  in  like  manner, 
life  and  holiness.  It  alone  j^roclaims  that,  wherever 
there  is  death,  it  is  there  because  sin  was  there  first ; 
wherever  there  is  no  death,  that  is,  life,  it  is  there 
because  sin  has  never  been  there,  or,  having  been 
once,  is  now  cast  out  and  expelled.  In  revealed 
religion,  which  thus  makes  death  to  have  come  into 
the  world  through  sin,  and  only  through  sin,  life  is 
the  correlative  of  holiness.  Whatever  truly  lives, 
does  so  because  sin  has  never  found  place  in  it,  or, 
having  found,  has  been  expelled  from  it.  So  soon 
as  ever  this  is  felt  and  understood,  ^cotj  at  once  as- 
sumes the  profoundest  moral  significance ;  it  be- 
comes the  fittest  expression  for  the  very  highest 
blessedness.  Of  that  whereof  you  predicate  abso- 
lute fa)?7,  you  predicate  of  the  same  absolute  holi- 
ness.    Christ  afiirming  of  Himself,  iyco  elfic  r)  ^mtj, 

^  Zo)))  aidn/ios  occurs  once  in  the  Septuagint  (Dan.  xii.  2 ;  cf.  ^w^ 
aiuvaos,  2  Mace.  vii.  36),  and  in  Plutarch,  Be  Jsid.  et  Os.  X. 


NEW    TESTAilEXT.  133 

implicitly  affirmed  of  Himself  tliat  He  was  absolute 
lioliness  ;  and  in  the  creatm-e,  in  like  manner,  that 
only  lives,  or  triumphs  over  death,  death  at  once 
physical  and  spiritual,  which  has  first  triumphed 
over  sin.  Xo  wonder,  then,  that  Scripture  should 
know  of  no  higher  word  than  fwrj  to  set  forth  either 
the  blessedness  of  God,  or  the  blessedness  of  the 
creature  in  communion  with  God. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  will  at  once  be  per- 
ceived how  erroneous  is  that  exposition  of  Eph.  iv. 
18,  which  understands  a7n)XKoTpi(oixevoL  t?)?  fo)?}? 
rov  0eo£),  a&  "  alienated  from  a  divine  life,"  or,  from 
a  life  lived  according  to  the  will  and  commandments 
of  God  (remoti  a  vita  ilia  qu83  secundum  Deum  est: 
Grotius),  f&}7;  having  never,  certainly  never  with 
St.  Paul,  this  signification.  The  fact  of  such  aliena- 
tion was  only  too  true ;  but  it  is  not  what  the  Apos- 
tle is  affirming.  Rather  he  is  there  describing  the 
miserable  condition  of  the  heathen,  as  of  men  es- 
tranged from  God,  the  one  fountain  of  life  {jrapa 
Sol  TTTjyr)  fo)?}?,  Ps.  XXXV.  10) ;  as  not  having  life, 
because  separated  from  Him  who  alone  absolutely 
lives  (John  v.  26),  and  in  connexion  with  whom 
alone  any  creature  has  life.  Gal.  v.  22  is  another 
passage,  which  we  shall  never  rightly  understand, 
which  will  always  seem  to  contain  a  tautology, 
imtil  we  give  to  ^coyj  (and  to  the  verb  ^rjv  as  well), 
the  force  which  has  been  claimed  for  it  here. 


134:  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 


§  xxviii. — Kvpio<;,   SeaTrorr)^. 

The  distinction  which  the  later  Greek  gram- 
marians sought  to  trace  between  these  words  was 
this ;  a  man  would  be  BeaTrorrj^;,  as  resj)ects  his 
slaves  (Plato,  Leggf.  756  e),  and  therefore  oUoBeairo- 
T77?5  but  Kvpio^  in  respect  of  his  wife  and  children, 
who,  in  speaking  either  to  him  or  of  him,  would 
use  this  title  of  honour ;  "  as  Sara  obeyed  Abraham, 
calling  him  lord''''  (icvpiov  avrov  KoXovaa,  1  Pet. 
iii.  6  ;  cf.  1  Sam.  i.  8  ;  and  Plutarch,  De  Virt.  Mill. 
s.  vv.  MifCKa  KoX  MeyicTTco).  There  is  a  certain  truth 
in  this  distinction.  Undoubtedly  there  does  lie  in 
KvpLo^  the  sense  of  an  authority  owning  limitations, 
—  moral  limitations  it  may  be  —  and  the  w^ord  im- 
plies that  the  user  will  not  exclude,  in  its  use,  their 
good  over  whom  it  is  exercised ;  while  in  Seo-TroT?;? 
is  implied  a  more  unrestricted  power  and  absolute 
domination,  confessing  no  such  limitations  or  re- 
straints. He  who  addresses  another  as  SeaTrora,  puts 
a  far  greater  emphasis  of  submission  into  his  speech 
than  if  he  had  addressed  him  as  Kvpce.  It  was  out 
of  a  feeling  of  this  that  the  free  Greeks  refused  this 
title  of  S€a7r6T7]<;  to  any  but  the  gods  (Euripides, 
JTippol.  88 :  ava^,  deov^  jap  S6a7T6Ta<;  KoXetv  ^(^peotiv)  ; 
and  the  sense  of  this  distinction  of  theirs  we  have 


NEW  testa:m:e:nt.  135 

retained  in  our  nse  of  '  desjDOt,'  '  despotic,'  '  despot- 
ism,' as  set  over  against  our  use  of  'lord,'  '  lordship,' 
and  the  like ;  the  '  despot '  is  one  who  exercises  not 
only  dominion,  but  domination. 

Still,  there  were  influences  at  work,  whose  ten- 
dency was  to  break  down  any  such  distinction  as 
this.  Slavery,  however  legalized,  is  so  abhorrent  to 
men's  inborn  sense  of  right,  that  they  seek  to  miti- 
gate, in  word  at  least,  if  not  in  fact,  the  atrocity  of 
it ;  and  thus,  as  no  southern  Planter  at  the  present 
day  willingly  speaks  of  his  "  slaves,"  but  prefers 
some  other  term,  so  in  antiquity,  as  far  as  any  gen- 
tler or  more  humane  view  of  slavery  obtained,  and 
it  was  not  merely  contemplated  in  the  aspect  of  one 
man's  imlimited  power  over  another,  the  antithesis 
of  heaiTOTT]^  and  hovXo^  would  continually  give  place 
to  that  of  KvpLo^  and  BovXo^.  The  harsher  antago- 
nism would  still  survive,  but  the  milder  would  j^re- 
vail  side  by  side  with  it.  So  practically  we  find  it ; 
one  language  is  used  as  freely  as  the  other ;  and 
often  in  the  same  sentence  both  terms  are  em^^loyed 
(Philo,  Quod  Omn.  Froh.  Lih.  6).  We  need  not 
look  further  than  to  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  to  see 
how  little,  in  popular  speech,  the  distinction  of  the 
Greek  synonymists  was  observed,  blasters  are  now 
KvpLOi  (Eph.  vi.  9  ;  Col.  iv.  1),  and  now  Beairorai, 
(1  Tim.  vi.  1,  2 ;  Tit.  ii.  9 ;  cf.  1  Pet.  ii.  IS),  with 
him. 


136  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

But,  while  all  experience  shows  how  little  sinful 
man  can  be  trusted  with  absolute  unrestricted  power 
over  his  fellow,  how  certain  he  is  to  abuse  it — a 
moral  fact  attested  in  our  use  of  '  despot '  as  equiv- 
alent with  '  tyrant,'  as  well  as  in  the  history  of  the 
word  'tyrant'  itself — it  can  only  be  a  blessedness 
for  man  to  think  of  God  as  the  absolute  Lord,  Ruler, 
and  Disposer  of  his  life ;  since  with  Him  power  is 
never  disconnected  from  wisdom  and  from  love: 
and,  as  w^e  saw  that  the  Greeks,  not  without  a  cer- 
tain sense  of  this,  were  well  pleased  to  style  the 
gods  heairorai,  however  they  might  refuse  this  title 
to  any  other ;  so,  within  the  limits  of  Revelation, 
we  find  Seo-TTOT?;?,  no  less  than  Kvpco^,  aj^plied  to  the 
true  God.    In  the  OM  Testament,  '  Adonai '  is  occa- 
sionall}^  rendered  by  the  two  words  joined  together; 
as  at  Gen.  xv.  2,  8 ;  Jer.  i.  6 ;   iv.  10.     l^o  doubt 
BeaTTorr}^  realized  to  their  minds  who  used  it,  even 
more  than  Kvptoi;,  the  sense  of  God's  absolute  dis- 
posal of  His  creatures.  His  autocratic  power ;  and 
that  wdien  He  worked,  none  could  let  Him.     That 
it  did  so  present  itself  to  Greek  ears  is  plain  from 
a  passage  in  Philo  {Qids  Rer.  Div.  Hoer.  6),  where 
he  finds  an  evidence  of  Abraham's  evXa/Seia,  of  his 
tempering,  on  one   great  occasion,  boldness  with 
reverence  and  godly  fear,  in  the  fact  that  in  his  ap- 
proaches to  God  he  leaves  the  more  usual  Kvpte,  and 
instead  of  it  adopts  the  SeaTrora,  in  which  there  was 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  137 

implied  a  more  entire  prostration  of  self,  an  ampler 
recognition  of  the  omnipotence  of  God.  The  pas- 
sages in  the  Isew  Testament  where  God  is  styled 
SeaTTOTTj^  are  these  which  follow :  Luke  ii.  29  ;  Acts 
iv.  24:;  Eev.  vi.  10;  2  Pet.  ii.  1;  Jude  5.  In  the 
two  last  it  is  to  Christ,  but  to  Christ  as  God,  that 
the  title  is  ascribed.  Erasmus,  indeed,  with  that 
latent  Arianism,  of  which,  perhaps,  he  was  scarcely 
conscious  to  himself,  denies  that  in  the  words  of 
Jude  heairoTrjv  is  to  be  referred  to  Christ ;  giving 
only  Kvpiov  to  Him,  and  BeaTrori^v  to  the  Father. 
The  fact  that  in  the  Greek  text,  as  he  read  it,  ©eov 
followed  and  was  joined  to  SeaTrorrjv,  no  doubt  really 
lay  at  the  root  of  his  reluctance  to  ascribe  the  title 
of  SeaTTorrj^  to  Christ.  It  was  with  him  not  a  philo- 
logical, but  a  theological  difficulty,  however  he 
may  have  sought  to  persuade  himself  otherwise. 


§  xxix. — aXa^coVj  vTrepijcpavo^y  v/SpLart]'^. 

These  words,  which  occur  all  three  of  them  to- 
gether at  Eom.  i.  30,  and  the  first  two  at  2  Tim.  iii. 
2,  offer  an  interesting  subject  for  synonymous  dis- 
crimination. We  shall  find  them,  I  think,  not  to 
speak  of  other  differences,  constituting  a  regular 
sequence  in  this  respect,  that  the  aXa^cov  is  boastful 


138  STNOXYMS    OF   THE 

in  words^  the  v7Tepi](^avo<;  proud  in  thoughts^  the 
v/SpLo-TT]^  insolent  and  injurious  in  acts. 

And  first,  as  respects  aXa^cov.  This  word  occurs 
in  the  ISTew  Testament  only  at  the  two  places  al- 
ready referred  to ;  dXa^oveia  also  twice,  Jam.  iv.  16  ; 
1  John  ii.  16.  Derived  from  dXr],  '  a  wandering 
about,'  it  was  applied  first  to  vagabond  mounte- 
banks, conjurers,  and  exorcists  (Acts  xix.  13 ;  1  Tim. 
V.  13),  who  were  full  of  empty  and  boastful  profes- 
sions of  feats  which  they  could  accomplish ;  being 
from  them  transferred  to  any  braggart  or  boaster, 
vaunting  himself  to  be  in  possession  of  skill,  or 
knowledge,  or  courage,  or  virtue,  or  riches,  or  what- 
ever else  it  might  be,  which  had  no  existence  in 
fact.  Thus  Plato  defines  aXa^oveia  to  be  eft?  irpoa- 
iroirjTLfcr)  aya6a)v  firj  v'7Tap')(ovT(ov :  and  Xenoplion 
{Cyrojy.  ii.  2.  12)  describes  the  dXa^cov  thus :  6  fiev 
rydp  uXa^cbv  e/zotye  S^o/cel  ovofia  Keiadai  eVl  roL<;  irpoa- 
7roLov/uievot<;  Kal  irXoucncorepoL';  elvai  ij  eiac,  Kai 
dvSp6LOT6poL<;,  Kol  TTOLijcreLV,  a  fir)  iKavol  elat^  vttlo-- 
')(vovfjLevoL<;  *  /cal  ravra,  (^avepol^  yiyvopukvoi^^  on  rov 
Xa^elv  Ti  €v€Ka  Kal  Kephdvat  iroLovatv  :  and  Aris- 
totle {Ethic.  JS'ic.  iv.  Y.  2)  :  hoKet  Sr)  6  /mev  dXa^cov 
iTpoaTroi'r)TiKO<i  tojv  ivSo^oov  elvai,  Kal  jxi]  viTap-)(0VT(ov, 
Kal  fiet^ovcov  rj  V7rdp')(ei. 

It  is  not  an  accident,  but  of  the  essence  of  the 
dXa^oiv,  that  in  his  boastings  he  overpasses  the  limits 
of  the  truth  (Wisd.  ii.  16,)  as  appears  plainly  from 


NEW    TESTA^SIENT.  139 

tliat  whole  passage  in  Aristotle,  who  nowhere  de- 
scribes him  as  merely  making  unseemly  display  of 
things  which  he  actually  possesses,  but  as  vaunting 
of  tliose  which  he  does  not  possess ;  cf.  Rliet.  ii.  6 : 
TO  TCL  aWoTpia  avrov  (pdaKeif,  aXatpvela^  orjixelov  : 
and  Xenophon,  Memor.  i.  7.  Thus,  too,  Plato  {Pol. 
5G0  &)  joins  yjrevBeU  koL  a\a^6ve<;  \6yoi ;  and  we  have 
a  lively  description  of  the  aXatcov  in  the  Characters 
(23)  of  Theophrastus  ;  and  still  better,  of  the  shifts 
and  evasions  to  which  he  has  recourse,  in  the  work, 
Ad  Hcrenn.  iv.  50,  51.  While,  therefore, '  braggart ' 
or  '  boaster '  fairly  represents  a\afc6i/,  ^  ostentation  ' 
does  not  well  give  back  cikaCpvda^  seeing  that  a  man 
can  only  be  ostentatious  in  that  which  he  really  has 
to  show ;  we  have,  in  fact,  no  word  which  renders 
it  at  all  so  adequately  as  the  German  '  Prahlerei.' 
Thus,  Falstaff  and  Parolles  are  both  excellent, 
though  infinitely  diverse,  examples  of  the  aXa'Cfliv : 
while,  on  the  contrary,  Marlowe's  Tamburlaine, 
despite  of  all  the  big  vaunting  words  which  he  ut- 
ters, is  no  such,  inasmuch  as  there  are  fearful  reali- 
ties of  power  with  which  these  his  ^eyaX?;?  y\coaari<; 
KofjbTToi  are  sustained  and  borne  out.  This  dealing 
in  braggadocia  is  a  vice  sometimes  ascribed  to 
whole  nations  ;  thus,  an  efMcpvro^  aka'Cpveia  was 
charged  on  the  iEtolians  of  old,  and,  in  modern 
times,  on  the  Gascons,  who  out  of  this  have  given 
us   the  word   'gasconade.'      The  Yulgate,  which 


140  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

translates  aXa^ove^;,  '  elati,'  and  which  the  Rhemisli 
follows,  '  hanglity,'  has  not  seized  the  middle  point 
of  the  word  as  successfully  as  Beza,  who  has  ren- 
dered it  '  gloriosi.' ' 

A  distinction  has  been  sometimes  drawn  be- 
tween the  aka^oiv  and  the  irepirepo^  [77  aydiTr]  ov  irep- 
mrepeverat,  1  Cor.  xiii.  4],  that  the  lirst  vaunts  of 
tilings  which  he  does  not  possess,  the  second,  of 
things  which, —  however  little  this  his  boasting  and 
bravery  about  them  may  become  him, —  he  actually 
has.  The  distinction,  however,  is  not  one  that  can 
be  maintained  (Polybius,  xxxii.  6.  6  ;  xl.  6.  2) ;  both 
are  liars  alike. 

But  this  habitual  boasting  of  one's  own,  will 
hardly  fail  to  be  accompanied  with  a  contempt  for 
that  of  others.  If  it  did  not  find,  it  would  rapidly 
generate,  such  a  feeling;  and  thus  aXa^ovela  is 
nearly  allied  to  vTrepo-^jrla :  we  find  them  not  seldom 
used  as  almost  convertible  terms ;  thus  see  Philo, 
De  Carit.  22 — 24.  But  from  vTrepo-yfria  to  V7rep7)j)avla 
the  step  is  very  near ;  and  thus  we  need  not  wonder 

• 

^  "We  formerly  used  'glorious'  in  this  sense.  Thus,  in  N'orth's 
Plutarch, '^.  \%2> :  "Some  took  this  for  a  glorious  brag;  others 
thought  he  [Alcibiades]  was  like  enough  to  have  done  it."  And 
Milton  {The  Reasoii  of  Church  Governmeyit,  i.  5):  "He  [Ansclm] 
little  dreamt  then  that  the  weeding  hook  of  Reformation  would, 
after  two  ages,  pluck  up  his  glorious  poppy  [prelacy]  from  insult- 
ing over  the  good  corn  [presbytery]." 


NEW    TESTAIMENT.  141 

to  meet  vTT€pi](l)avo<=;  joined  with  dXa^cov.  This  word 
occurs  three  times,  besides  the  two  occasions  noted 
already ;  at  Luke  i.  51 ;  Jam.  iv.  6  ;  1  Pet.  v.  5  ; 
vTreprjcpavia  once,  Mark  vii.  22.  A  picturesque 
image  serves  for  its  basis,  being,  of  course,  derived 
from  virep,  and  (paLvojuac,  one  who  shoivs  himself 
above  his  fellows,  exactly  as  the  Latin  '  superbus '  is 
from  'super;'  as  our  'stilts'  is  connected  with 
'  Stolz,'  and  with  '  stout '  in  its  earlier  sense  of 
*  proud,'  or  '  lifted  up.'  Deyling,  Ohss.  Sac.  vol.  v. 
p.  219  :  Qu^  vox  proj^rie  notat  hominem  capite  su- 
per alios  eminentem,  ita  ut  quemadmodum  Saul, 
prie  ceteris,  sit  conspicuus,  1  Sam.  ix.  2.  Figurate 
est  is  qui  ubique  eminere,  et  aliis  pr?eferri  cupit. 

A  man  can  be  actually  dXa^cov  only  when  he  is 
in  company  with  his  fellow  men ;  but  the  seat  of 
the  vTreprj^avla  is  the  mind.  He  that  is  sick  of  this 
sin,  compares  himself  secretly  toith  others,  and  lifts 
himself  ahove  others,  in  honour  preferring  himself. 
His  sin,  as  Theophrastus  {Cliaract.  31)  describes  it, 
is  the  KaTacf)p6v7)aL<;  ti<;  ttXi]!/  avrov  tmv  aWwv.  His 
conduct  to  others  is  not  of  the  essence  of  his  sin,  it 
is  only  the  consequence.  His  '  arrogance,'  as  we  say, 
his  claiming  to  himself  of  honour  and  observance, 
his  indignation,  and,  it  may  be,  his  cruelty  and  re- 
venge, if  these  are  withheld,  are  only  the  result  of 
this  false  estimate  of  himself.  In  this  way  virept)- 
(bai'OL  KoX  ^apeh  (Plutarch,  Qu.  Rom.  63)  are  joined 


142  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

together.  In  the  viTepri^avo<;  we  have  tne  perversion 
of  a  much  nobler  character  than  in  the  aXa^cov,  the 
melancholic,  as  the  aXa^cov  is  the  sanguine,  the 
v/Spiari]^  the  choleric,  temperament ;  but  because 
nobler,  therefore  one  which,  if  it  falls,  falls  more 
deeply,  sins  more  fearfully.  He  is  one,  in  the 
striking  language  of  Scripture,  "  whose  heart  is  lift- 
ed np,"  vyjr7]\o/cdpSi,o<;  (Pro v.  xvi.  5) ;  he  is  one  of 
those  ra  vy^rrfka  (ppovovvre^  (Rom.  xii.  16),  as  opposed 
to  the  raireivol  rf]  KapSta ;  and  this  lifting  up  of  his 
heart  may  be  not  merely  against  man,  but  against 
God ;  he  may  assail  the  very  prerogatives  of  Deity 
itself  (1  Mace.  i.  21,  21 ;  Wisd.  xiv.  6 :  vTreprjcpavoc 
yiydvT6^).  Therefore  are  we  thrice  told,  in  the  very 
same  words,  that  "  God  resisteth  the  proud  "  {vTrepr}- 
(pdvoL^  avTcrdaa-eTat :  Jam.  iv.  6  ;  1  Pet.  v.  5  ;  Prov. 
iii.  34) ;  sets  Himself  in  battle  array  against  them, 
as  they  against  Him. 

'We  have  now  to  sj^eak  of  vfipLaTt]<i,  which,  by 
its  derivation  from  v^pt^,  (which  is,  again,  from  virep, 
as  we  should  say,  '  uppishness,' )  stands  in  a  certain 
etymological  relation  with  vTreprjcbavo^  (see  Donald- 
son, JVeio  Oratylus^  p^D.  517 — 519).  The  word  occurs 
only  twice  ;  Rom.  i.  30,  where  we  have  translated 
it,  '  despiteful ; '  and  1  Tim.  i.  13,  where  we  have 
rendered  it,  '  injurious.'  In  the  Septnagint  often  ; 
and  at  Job  xl.  6,  7 ;  Isa.  ii.  12,  in  connexion  with 
v7r€p7](j)apo(; :  as  the  two,  in  like  manner,  are  cou- 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  143 

nected  by  Aristotle  {Rhet.  ii.  16).  Other  words  with 
winch  it  is  associated,  are  aypuos  (Homer,  Od.  vi. 
120) ;  aTaaeaXos  {lb.  xxiv.  282) ;  aStfco^;  (Plato,  Zegg. 
i.  630  h) ;  virepoiTTT]'^  (Aristotle,  Ethic.  JSfic.  vi.  3. 
21).  The  v/Spcarrj^  is  contumelious ;  his  insolence 
and  contempt  of  others  break  forth  in  acts  of  wan- 
tonness and  outrage.  Thus,  when  Hanun,  king  of 
Amnion,  cut  short  the  garments  of  king  David's 
ambassadors,  and  shaved  off  half  their  beards,  and 
so  sent  them  back  (2  Sam.  x.),  this  was  v/Spt^.  St. 
Paul  declares  that,  in  the  time  when  he  persecuted 
the  Church,  he  was  v/SpiarT]^  (1  Tim.  i.  13  ;  cf.  Acts 
viii.  3),  but  that  he  was  himself  v/Spcadel^  (1  Thess. 
ii.  2)  at  Philippi  (Acts  xvi.  22,  23).  Our  blessed 
Lord,  when  He  is  prophesying  the  order  of  His 
Passion,  declares  that  the  Son  of  Man  v^piadrja-erai 
(Luke  x\m.  32),  as  w^e  have  later  the  account  of 
the  v^pi^  which  He  actually  underwent  at  the 
hands  of  the  Koman  soldiery  (Matt,  xxvii.  27 — 30). 
The  whole  blasphemous  masquerade  of  royalty,  in 
which  it  was  sought  that  He  should  sustain  the 
chief  part,  was  such.  Tacitus,  describing  the  deaths 
of  the  Christians  in  I^ero's  persecution,  adds  {A^i- 
7ial.  XV.  44)  :  Pereuntibus  addita  hidibria  ;  they 
died,  he  would  say,  //.e^'  v/3peco<;:  the  same  applies 
to  York,  when,  in  Shakspeare's  Henry  VI.,  the  pa- 
per crown  is  set  upon  his  head,  before  Margaret 
and  Clifford  stab  him. 


1^4  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

Cruelty  and  lust  are  the  two  great  spheres  in 
which  v^pi^  will  display  itself;  or  rather  not  two  ; 
—  for  they  are  one  and  the  same  sin,  and  when 
Milton  wrote,  "  lust  hard  by  hate,"  saying  much,  he 
yet  did  not  say  all ;  —  but  the  two  forms  in  w^hich  it 
w^ill  mainly  display  itself ;  and,  out  of  a  sense  that 
the  latter  belongs  to  it  quite  as  much  as  the  former, 
Josephus  [Antt.  i.  11.  1)  characterizes  the  men  of 
Sodom  as  being  v^ptaral  to  men,  no  less  than  dae- 
/Set?  to  God.  He  applies  exactly  the  same  phrase 
on  a  later  occasion  {A?iU.  v.  10.  1)  to  the  sons  of 
Eli;  indicating  on  each  occasion  presently  after, 
that  by  this  v^pL<;  which  he  charged  on  those  and 
these,  he  intended  an  assault  on  the  chastity  of 
others ;  cf.  Plutarch,  Demet.  21 ;  Lucian,  Dial.  Deor. 
vi.  1 ;  and  the  article  "T/Speco?  hUr]  in  Pauly's  En- 
cyclopddie.  The  true  antithesis  to  v^pLarrj^  is  aoo- 
<f)pwv  (Xenophon,  Aj^ol.  Sog.  19  ;  Ages.  x.  2). 

The  three  words,  then,  are  very  broadly  distin- 
guishable from  one  another,  have  very  different 
provinces  of  meaning  severally  belonging  to  each, 
and  present  to  us  an  ascending  scale  of  guilt,  such 
as  I  sought  to  seize  at  the  first,  when  I  observed, 
that  the  three  severally  expressed  a  sin  in  word,  in 
thought,  and  in  deed. 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  145 


§  XXX. — di>TL')(^ptaTO<;,  '\}r€vS6')(pLaT0(;. 

The  word  dvTLXpi'O-T0<;  is  peculiar  to  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Jolm,  occuiTiiig  five  times  in  them  ;  1  Ep.  ii. 
18,  bis ;  ii.  22 ;  iv.  3 ;  2  Ep.  7 ;  and  no  where  be- 
sides. But,  although  St.  John  only  has  the  word, 
St.  Paul  has,  in  common  with  him,  a  designation 
of  the  person  of  this  great  adversary,  and  of  the 
marks  by  which  he  shall  be  recognized ;  for  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  avOpcoiro^  tt;?  d/jiapria^, 
the  u/o?  T7)9  dircoXela'i,  the  avofjio^  of  2  Thess.  ii.  3, 
8,  are  all  of  them  other  designations  of  the  same 
person  (see  Augustine,  De  Civ.  J)ei,  xx.  19.  2) ;  and, 
indeed,  to  St.  Paul  and  to  that  j^assage  in  his  wri- 
tings we  are  indebted  for  our  fullest  instruction 
concerning  this  great  enemy  of  Christ  and  of  God. 
Passing  by,  as  not  relevant  to  our  purpose,  many 
of  the  discussions  to  which  the  mysterious  announce- 
ment of  such  a  coming  foe  has  naturally  given  rise, 
as,  for  instance,  whether  we  are  to  understand  by 
the  Antichrist  a  single  person  or  a  line  of  persons, 
a  person  or  a  system,  there  is  only  one  of  these 
questions  which  has  a  right  to  occupy  us  here ; 
namely,  what  the  force  is  of  clvtl  in  this  composi- 
tion ;  docs  dvTLXpi'0-'^o<;  imply  one  who  sets  himself 
up  against  Christ,  or  one  who  sets  himself  up  in  the 
t 


lAC}  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

stead  of  Christ  ?  Is  he  an  open  foe,  who  seeks  vio- 
lently to  nsurp  his  seat ;  or  a  false  friend,  that  pro- 
fesses to  hold  it  in  his  name  ? 

There  is  no  settling  this  matter  off-hand,  as  some 
are  in  so  great  a  hurry  to  do ;  seeing  that  avrl,  in 
composition,  has  both  these  forces.  It  is  used  often 
in  the  sense  of  substitution  ^'  thus,  avTLJSaaCkev^^  he 
who  is  instead  of  the  king,  '  prorex,'  '  viceroy ; ' 
avOviraro^^  he  who  is  instead  of  the  consul,  '  procon- 
sul ; '  avTiheL7rvo<;^  he  who  fills  the  place  at  a  feast 
of  an  absent  guest ;  dvriXvrpov,  the  ransom  paid  in- 
stead of  a  person.  Then,  secondly,  there  is  in  avrl 
often  the  sense  of  oj)j)Osition,  as  in  dvTLOeat<;,  clvti- 
\oyia,  dvTLKeifjbevo^  :  and  still  more  to  the  point, 
more  exact  parallels  to  dvri'^piaTo?,  as  expressing 
not  merely  the  fact  of  opposition,  but,  in  the  latter 
half  of  the  word,  the  very  object  against  which  the 
opposition  is  directed,  avjivofjuia  (see  Suicer,  Thes. 
s.  v.),  opposition  to  law ;  dvTL')(6Lp,  the  thumb,  as  set 
over  against  the  hand ;  dvTrjXio^^  Ijing  over  against, 
and  so  exposed  to,  the  sun ;  ^AvrLKdrcov,  the  title 
which  Csesar  gave  to  a  book  which  he  wrote  against 
Cato  ;  ai/r/^eo?,— not  indeed  in  Homer,  where  it  is 
applied  to  Polyphemus  {Od.  i.  YO),  and  to  the  suit- 
ors (xiv.  18),  and  must  mean  '  godlike,'  that  is,  in 
strength  and  power;  —  but  yet,  in  later  use,  as  in 
Pliilo ;  with  whom  dvTiOeo^  z/oO?  {De  Conf.  Ling. 
19)  can  be  no  other  than  the  ^  ad  versa  Deo  mens  ;' 


liEVV    TESTAiI£:NT.  147 

and  so  in  the  Christian  Fathers.  And  the  jests 
about  an  'Antipater'  who  sought  to  murder  his 
father,  to  the  effect  that  he  was  (j)€p(Dvvfio^^  would 
be  utterly  pointless,  if  avrl  in  composition  did  not 
bear  this  meaning.  I  will  not  cite  'Avrepw^^  where 
the  force  of  avri  is  more  questionable ;  and  exam- 
ples in  sufficient  number  have  been  quoted  already 
to  prove  that  in  words  compounded  with  avri,  some 
imply  substitution,  some  opposition ;  which  being 
so,  they  have  equally  erred,  who,  holding  one  view 
of  Antichrist  or  the  other,  have  affirmed  that  the 
word  itself  decided  the  matter  in  their  favour.  It 
does  not  so ;  but  leaves  the  question  to  be  settled 
by  other  considerations.  (See  on  this  word  avrl- 
Xpto-ro^;  a  masterly  discussion  by  Liicke,  Coram,  iib. 
die  Brlefe  des  Johannes^  pp.  190 — 194.) 

For  myself,  St.  John's  words  seem  to  me  deci- 
sive on  the  matter,  that  resistance  to,  and  defiance 
of,  Christ,  not  the  false  assumption  of  his  character 
and  offices,  is  the  essential  mark  of  Antichrist ;  that 
which,  therefore,  we  should  expect  to  find  embodied 
in  his  name  ;  thus  see  1  John  ii.  22  ;  2  John  7;  and 
in  the  parallel  passage,  2  Thess.  ii.  4,  he  is  6  avriKei- 
Ijuevos^  where  none  will  deny  that  the  force  of  avn 
is  that  of  opposition :  and  in  this  sense,  if  not  all, 
yet  many  of  the  Fathers  have  understood  the  word. 
Thus  Tertullian  {De  Ptcbsc.  Hoer.  4) :  Qui  Anti- 
christi,  nisi  Christi  rebelles  ?     He  is,  in  Theophy- 


148  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

lact's  language,  ivavTio<;  tm  XptarSy  *  TF^'^^cTclirist,' 
as  tlie  Gemans  have  rightly  rendered  it ;  one  who 
shall  not  -pay  so  much  homage  to  God's  word  as  to 
assert  its  fulfilment  in  himself,  for  he  shall  deny 
that  word  altogether ;  hating  even  erroneous  wor- 
ship, because  it  is  worship  at  all,  hating  much  more 
the  Church's  worshij)  in  sj)irit  and  in  truth ;  who, 
on  the  destruction  of  every  religion,  every  acknow- 
ledgment that  man  is  submitted  to  higher  powers 
than  himself,  shall  seek  to  establish  his  own  throne ; 
and,  for  God's  great  truth,  '  God  is  man,'  to  substi- 
tute his  own  lie,  '  Man  is  God.' 

The  term  •v/reuS6;^/Dt(7To?,  w^ith  which  we  proceed 
to  compare  it,  occurs  only  twice  in  the  E^ew  Testa- 
ment ;  or,  if  we  count,  not  how  often  it  has  been 
written,  but  how  often  it  was  spoken,  only  once ;  for 
the  two  passages  (Matt.  xxiv.  24 ;  Mark  xiii.  22)  are 
records  of  the  same  discourse.  In  form  the  Avord 
resembles  so  many  others  which  appear  to  have 
been  combined  of  -v^eOSo?  and  almost  any  other  sub- 
stantive at  will.  Thns,  ylrevBaTroaroXo^,  ■xjrevSdSeXcjiO';, 
'^IrevBoBLhda/caXo'^^  ■\lr€vSo7rpo(f)7JT7]<^j  -xlrevBo/jidpTvp,  all 
in  the  ITew  Testament ;  the  last  also  in  Plato.  So, 
too,  in  ecclesiastical  Greek,  '\lr6vSo7roL/j,7]v,  -yjrevBoXa- 
Tpluy  and  in  classical,  yjrevSdjyeXog  (Homer),  'xjrevSo- 
fjiavTi^  (Herodotus),  and  a  hundred  more.  The  ^freu- 
S6xpi'O-T0<;  is  not  one  who  denies  the  being  of  a 
Christ ;  on  the  contrary,  he  builds  on  the  world's 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  149 

expectations  of  sncli  a  person  ;  only  he  appropriates 
these  to  himself,  blasphemously  affirms  that  he  is 
the  Foretold  One,  in  whom  God's  promises  and 
men's  expectations  are  fulfilled.  Thus  Barchochab, 
or  "  the  son  of  the  Star," — as  claimiog  the  prophecy 
at  Xumb.  xxiy.  17  he  called  himself, —  who,  in 
Adrian's  reign,  stirred  up  again  the  smouldering 
embers  of  Jewish  insurrection  into  a  flame  so  fierce 
that  it  consumed  himself  with  more  than  a  million 
of  his  fellow-countrymen, —  he  was  a  'yjr€vS6xpt'O-T0<^ : 
and  such  haye  been  that  long  series  of  blasphemous 
pretenders  and  impostors,  the  false  Messiahs,  who, 
since  the  rejection  of  the  true,  haye,  in  almost  eyery 
age,  flattered  and  betrayed  the  expectation  of  the 
Jews. 

The  distinction,  then,  is  plain.  The  aj/r/p^picTTo? 
denies  that  there  is  a  Christ ;  the  -yjrevSoxpi'O-ro^  af- 
firms himself  to  be  the  Christ.  Both  alike  make 
war  against  the  Christ  of  God,  and  would  set  them- 
selyes,  though  under  dififerent  pretences,  on  the 
throne  of  his  glory.  And  yet,  while  the  words  haye 
this  broad  distinction  between  them,  while  they 
represent  two  diflerent  manifestations  of  the  king- 
dom of  wickedness,  we  ought  not  to  forget  that 
there  is  a  sense  in  which  the  final  Antichrist  will  be 
a  Pseudochrist  as  well ;  eyen  as  it  will  be  the  yery 
character  of  that  last  reyelation  of  hell  to  absorb 
iuto  itself,  and  to   reconcile  for   one   last   assault 


150  SYXOXYZilS   OF  Tirc 

against  tlie  truth,  all  anterior  and  subordinate  forms 
of  evil.  He  will  not,  it  is  true,  call  himself  Clirist, 
for  he  will  be  filled  with  deadliest  hate  both  against 
the  name  and  oflices,  as  against  the  whole  spirit  and 
temper,  of  Jesus  of  Xazareth,  now  the  exalted  King 
of  Glory.  But,  inasmuch  as  no  one  can  resist  the 
truth  by  a  mere  negation,  he  must  ofter  and  oj^pose 
something  positive  in  the  room  of  that  faith  which 
he  will  assail  and  endeavour  utterly  to  abolish. 
And  thus  we  may  certainly  conclude,  that  the  final 
Antichrist  will  present  himself  to  the  world  as,  in 
a  sense,  its  Messiah  ;  not,  indeed,  as  the  Messiah  of 
prophecy,  the  Messiah  of  God,  but  still  as  the 
world's  saviour ;  as  one,  who,  if  men  will  follow 
him,  will  make  their  blessedness,  giving  to  them  the 
full  enjoyment  of  a  present  material  earth,  instead 
of  a  distant  and  shadowy  heaven  ;  abolishing  those 
troublesome  distinctions,  now  the  fruitful  sources  of 
so  much  disquietude  and  pain ;  those,  namely,  be- 
tween the  Church  and  the  world,  between  the  spirit 
and  the  flesh,  between  holiness  and  sin,  between 
good  and  evil.  It  will  follow,  therefore,  that  how- 
ever he  will  not  assume  the  name  of  Christ,  and  so 
will  not,  in  the  letter,  be  a  yp-evSoxpio-ro^;,  yet, 
usurping  to  himself  Christ's  ofiices,  presenting  him- 
self to  the  world  as  the  true  centre  of  its  hopes,  as 
the  satisfier  of  its  needs  and  healer  of  its  hurts,  he 
will  in  fact  take  up  into  himself  all  names  and 


XEW    TESTAMENT.  151 

forms  of  blaspliemj,  ^ill  be  the  -^evho-^picrTo^  and 
the  dvTLXpi'CrTo^  at  once. 


§  xxxi. — fioXvvQjj  /JLiaivci), 

We  have  translated  both  these  words,  as  often 
as  they  occur  (the  first,  at  1  Cor.  yiii.  T ;  Eev.  iii. 
4 ;  xiv.  4: ;  the  second,  at  John  xviii.  2S  ;  Tit.  i.  15  ; 
Ileb.  xii.  15 ;  Jude  8),  invariably  bv  the  one  English 
word,  ^  defile,'  a  word  which  doubtless  covers  them 
both.  At  the  same  time  there  exists  a  certain  dif- 
ference between  them,  or  at  least  between  the 
images  on  which  they  rej^ose  —  this  namely,  that 
fjioXvv€Lv  is  properly  '  to  besmear '  or  '  besmirch,'  as 
with  mud  or  filth,  'todefoul;'  which,  indeed,  is 
only  another  form  of  the  word  '  defile  ; '  thus  Aris- 
totle {Hist  A?i.  vi.  IT.  1)  speaks  of  swine,  tw  TryXS 
(jLo\vvovT€^  kavTov^ :  cf.  Plato,  Pol.  vii.  535  e  j  Cant. 
V.  .3 ;  while  fiLaiveiv,  in  its  primary  sense  and  usage, 
is  not  '  to  smear,'  as  with  matter,  but  '  to  stain,'  as 
with  colour.  The  first  corresponds  with  the  Latin 
*  inquinare '  (Horace,  Sat  i.  8.  37),  '  spurcare,'  (itself 
probably  from  '  porcus  '),  and  is  thus  exactly  equiv- 
alent to  the  German  '  besudeln ; '  the  second  with 
the  Latin  '  maculare,'  and  the  German  '  beflecken.' 

It  will  follow  from  what  has  been  said,  that  while. 


152  SYNONY]\IS    OF   THE 

in  a  secondary  and  ethical  sense,  both  words  have 
an  equally  dishonorable  signification,  the  /uLo\va/xo<: 
aapKo^  (2  Cor.  vii.  1)  being  no  other  than  the  /juda- 
jiara  rod  KoafMov  (2  Pet.  ii.  20),  this  will  only  hold 
good  so  long  as  the  words  are  figuratively  and  ethi- 
cally taken ;  so  taken,  ixiaiveiv  is  the  standing  word 
in  classical  Greek  to  express  the  profaning  or  un- 
hallowing  of  aught  (Plato,  Legg.  ix.  868  <^/  Tim.  69 
d ;  Sophocles,  Antig.  1031).  In  a  literal  sense,  on 
the  contrary,  fiLaivecv  may  be  used  in  good  part,  just 
as,  in  English,  we  speak  of  the  staini^lg  of  glass, 
the  stai?iing  of  ivory  (see  an  example  of  this,  Jl.  iv. 
141),  and  as,  in  Latin,  the  '  macula '  need  not  of 
necessity  be  also  a  '  labes ; '  /jLoXvpeiVy  on  the  other 
hand,  admitting  of  such  better  use  as  little  in  a 
literal  as  in  a  figurative  sense. 


§  xxxii. — irauhe'ia,  vovOeala. 

The  chief  inducement  to  attempt  a  discrimina- 
tion of  these  synonyms  lies  in  the  fact  of  their  oc- 
curring together  at  Eph.  vi.  4,  and  being  often  there 
not  distinguished  at  all,  or  erroneously  distin- 
guished. 

UaiheLa  is  one  of  those  many  words,  into  which 
the  more  earnest  spirit  of  revealed  religion  has  put 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  153 

a  deeper  meaning  than  it  knew  of,  till  tliat  took 
possession  of  it ;  the  nev\^  wine  by  a  wondrous  pro- 
cess making  new  even  the  old  vessel  into  which  it 
was  i30ured.  For  the  Greeks,  TratBela  was  simply 
'  education ; '  nor,  in  all  the  many  definitions  of 
TratSeia,  which  are  to  be  found  in  Plato,  is  there  so 
much  as  the  slightest  prophetic  anticipation  of  the 
new  force  which  the  word  should  obtain.  But  the 
deeper  apprehension  of  those  who  had  learned  that 
"  foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart "  alike  "  of  a 
child"  and  of  a  man,  while  yet  "the  rod  of  correc- 
tion may  drive  it  for  from  him  "  (Pro v.  xxii.  15),  led 
them,  in  assuming  the  word,  to  bring  into  it  a  fur- 
ther thought ;  they  felt  and  understood  that  all  ef- 
fectual instruction  for  the  sinful  children  of  men, 
includes  and  implies  chastening,  or,  as  we  are  ac- 
customed to  say,  out  of  a  sense  of  the  same  truth, 
*  correction.'  ^ 

Two  definitions  of  TratSela, —  the  one  by  a  great 
heathen  philosopher,  the  other  by  a  great  Christian 
theologian, —  may  be  fruitfully  compared.  This  is 
Plato's  definition  {Legg.  659  <:Z) :  irathda  ^lev  iaO'  77 
TralScov  oXk)]  t6  koL  aycoyr)  tt/do?  tov  vtto  tov  vofiov 
\6yov  opOov  elprj/Liivov  :  and  this  is  that  of  Basil  the 
Great  {Tii  Prov.  1)  :  eaTiv  ?5  irai^eia  aywyq  rt?  ox^e- 

^  The  Greek,  indeed,  acknowledged,  to  a  certain  extent,  the 
same,  in  his  secondary  use  of  aKoXaaros,  which,  in  its  primary, 
meant  simply  'the  tiiichastised.' 

7* 


154:  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

KTJkihwv  avTrjv  eKKaOaipovaa.  For  those  who  felt  and 
acknowledged  that  which  is  asserted  in  the  second 
clause  of  this  last  definition,  the  word  came  to  sig- 
nify, not  simply  '  ernditio,'  but,  as  Augustine  ex- 
presses it,  who  has  noticed  the  change  {Enarr.  in 
Ps.  cxviii.  QQ>\  ''per  molestias  eruditio.'  And  this  is 
quite  the  predominant  use  of  TratSela  and  iraiBevecv 
both  in  the  Sej)tuagint  and  in  the  E"ew  Testament 
(Lev.  xxvi.  18  ;  Ps.  vi.  1 ;  Isa.  liii.  5  ;  Sirac.  xxii.  6  ; 
fjudaTiyes  fcal  TratSela :  Luke  xxiii.  16 ;  Heb.  xii.  5, 
7,  8 ;  Rev.  iii.  19,  and  often).  The  only  occasion  in 
the  ISTew  Testament  upon  which  iraiheveLv  occurs  in 
the  old  Greek  sense,  is  Acts  vii.  22.  Instead  of 
"  nurture  "  at  Eph.  vi.  4,  which  is  hardly  strong 
enough  a  word,  '  discipline,'  I  am  persuaded,  would 
have  been  preferable  —  the  laws  and  ordinances  of 
the  Christian  household,  the  transgression  of  which 
will  induce  correction,  being  indicated  by  iraiheia. 

NovOeaia,  for  which  the  more  Attic  Greek  would 
have  had  vovOeTia  or  vovOejrjcns  (Lobeck,  Pliryni- 
chioSj  pp.  513,  520),  is  more  successfully  rendered, 
'  admonition  ; '  which,  however,  as  we  must  not  for- 
get, has  been  defined  by  Cicero  thus :  Admonitio 
est  quasi  lenior  objurgatio.  Exactly  so  much  is  in- 
tended by  vovOeaia  here  ;  the  training  by  word  — 
by  the  word  of  encouragement,  when  no  more  than 
this  is  wanted,  but  also  by  the  word  of  remonstrance, 


NEW    TESTA^IENT.  155 

of  reproof,  of  blame,  where  these  may  be  required ; 
as  set  over  against  the  training  by  act  and  by  dis- 
cij^line,  which  is  Traidela.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore, 
that  Bengel,  who  so  seldom  misses,  has  yet  missed 
here  the  distinction,  who,  on  the  words,  iv  iraihela 
Kal  vovdeala,  has  this  note  :  Iiarum  altera  occurrit 
ruditati ;  altera  oblivioni  et  levitati.  Utraque  et 
sermonem  et  reliqnam  disciplinam  inclndit.  In 
support  of  that  which  has  been  urged  above,  and 
in  evidence  that  vovdeala  is  the  training  by  word  of 
mouth,  such  combinations  as  the  following,  jrapat- 
veaeL^  Kal  vovOedlai  (Plutarch,  De  Coh.  Trd,  2) ;  vov- 
OeTLKol  Xoyoo  (Xenophon,  Mem.  i.  2.  21)  ;  ScSaxv  Kal 
vov6eTT}aL^  (Plato,  Pol.  399  h)  ;  vovOerdv  Kal  SiSdcr- 
K6LV  {Prot.  323  d\  may  be  adduced. 

Relatively,  then,  'and  as  by  comparison  with 
TratSeta,  vovQeiia  is  the  milder  term ;  while  yet  its 
mention,  associated  with  that  other,  teaches  us  that 
this  too  is  a  most  needful  element  of  Christian  edu- 
cation; that  the  iraiZda  without  it  would  be  very 
incomplete ;  even  as,  when  years  advance,  and  there 
is  no  longer  a  child  to  deal  with,  it  must  give  place 
to,  or  rather  be  swallowed  up  in,  the  vovOeala  alto- 
gether. And  yet  the  vovOeaia  itself,  where  need  is, 
may  be  earnest  and  severe  enough.  The  Avord  in- 
dicates much  more  than  a  mere  Eli-remonstrance  : 
"  iSTay,  my  sons,  for  it  is  no  good  report  that  I  hear  " 
(1  Sam.  ii.  2-1) ;  indeed,  of  Eli  it  is  expressly  re- 


156  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

corded,  in  respect  of  those  sons:  ovic  ivovOerec 
avTov?  (iii.  12).  In  Plutarch  alone  we  find  the  word 
nnited  with  /jL€fM-\jn^  {Conj.  Prcec.  13) ;  with  -yjroyo^ 
{De  Adul.  et  A^n.  17) ;  and  vovderelv  to  have  con- 
tinually, if  not  always,  the  sense  of  admonishing 
with  Uame  {It.  37 ;  De  Prof,  in  Virt.  11 ;  Conj. 
Prcec.  22).  Jerome,  then,  is  only  i^artially  in  the 
right,  when  he  desires  to  get  rid,  at  Eph.  vi.  4,  of 
*  correptione,'  which  he  found  in  the  Yulgate,  and 
which  still  keeps  its  place  there.  This  he  did,  on 
the  ground  that  in  vovOeala  no  rebuke  nor  austerity 
is  implied,  as  in  '  correptio '  there  certainly  is  : 
Quam  corre])tionem  nos  legimus,  melius  in  Grseco 
dicitur  vovOeala^  quae  adinonitionem  magis  et  eriidt' 
tionem  quam  aiisteritatem  sonat.  Undoubtedly,  in 
vovOeaia  such  is  not  of  necessity  implied,  and  there- 
fore '  correptio '  is  not  its  happiest  rendering ;  but 
the  word  does  not  exclude,  nay  implies  this,  when- 
ever it  may  be  required  ;  the  derivation,  from  vov^ 
and  TiOrj/jLL,  involves  as  much ;  whatever  is  needed 
to  cause  the  monition  to  be  taken  home,  is  implied 
in  the  word. 

In  claiming  for  vovOeaia,  as  compared  with  and 
discriminated  from  TratSela,  that  it  is  predominantly 
the  admonition  hy  word,  which  is  also  plainly  the 
view  that  our  translators  have  taken  of  it,  I  would 
not  at  all  deny  that  both  it  and  the  verb  vovderelv 
are  used  to  express  correction  ly  deed,  but  only  af- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  157 

firm  of  tlie  other  —  the  appeal  to  the  reasonable 
faculties  —  that  it  is  the  prevailing  use  of  both  ;  so 
that  in  such  phrases  as  these  of  Plato :  pdfioov  vov- 
6eT7)(ri<;  {^Legg.  TOO  c)  ;  ifK/qr^al^  vovOerelv  {Legg.  ST9 
cZ),  the  word  is  used  in  a  secondary  and  im2rro2)ei\ 
and  therefore  more  emphatic,  sense.  Such  passages 
are  exactly  parallel  to  that  in  Judges,  where  it  is 
said  of  Gideon,  that  "  he  took  thorns  of  the  wilder- 
ness and  briers,  and  with  them  he  taytgld  the  men 
of  Succoth "  (Judg.  viii.  16)  ;  on  the  strength  of 
which  language,  or  of  any  number  of  similar  uses, 
no  one  would  seek  to  deprive  the  verb  '  to  teach ' 
of  having,  as  its  j^rimary  meaning,  to  communicate 
orally  knowledge  from  one  to  another. 


§  xxxiii. — a(j)ecri<;,  Trapeat?. 

"A(j)eaL<;  is  the  usual  word  by  which  forgiveness, 
or  remission  of  sins,  is  expressed  in  the  'New  Testa- 
ment. Derived  from  dcplijfjLi,,  the  image  which  un- 
derlies it  is,  of  course,  that  of  a  releasing  or  letting 
go ;  probably  the  year  of  jubilee,  called  constantly 
€To^j  or  ivLavTo^^  ri)^  d<peaew^y  or  simply  d(j>eai<;  (Lev. 
XXV.  31,  40  ;  xxvii.  24),  and  in  which  all  debts  were 
to  be  forgiven,  suggested  the  higher  application  of 
the  word.     It  occurs  with  considerable  frequency, 


158  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

tliougli  oftener  in  St.  Luke  than  in  all  tlie  other 
books  of  the  l^ew  Covenant  put  together.  On  a 
single  occasion,  however,  the  term  irdpeai'^  tooi/ 
a/jLapTrjfMciTcov  occurs  (Itom.  iii.  25).  Our  translators 
have  not  noticed,  or  at  least  have  not  marked  in 
their  Version,  the  variation  in  the  Apostle's  phrase, 
but  render  irdpeo-ts  here  as  they  have  rendered  a^e- 
<TLs  elsewhe]*e  ;  and  many  have  since  justified  them 
in  this,  having,  after  consideration  of  the  subject, 
denied  that  any  difference  was  intended  by  him. 
Others  again,  and  as  I  believe  more  rightly,  are 
persuaded  that  St.  Paul  changed  his  word  not 
without  a  reason,  but  of  intention,  and  because  he 
wished  to  say  something  which  nrdpeai';  does  ex- 
press adequately  and  accurately,  and  which  dcpeo-c^ 
w^ould  not. 

It  is  known  to  many,  that  Cocceius  with  those 
of  liis  school  made  much  of  the  variation  of  w^ords 
here,  finding  herein  a  great  suj)port  for  a  favourite 
assertion  of  theirs,  that  there  was  no  remission  of 
sins,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  words,  under  the 
Old  Covenant,  no  reXelcoai^  (Pleb.  x.  1 — 4:),  no  entire 
abolition  of  sin  even  for  the  faithful  themselves,  but 
only  a  present  jDrcetermission  (irdpeaL^),  or  dissimula- 
tion, upon  God's  part,  in  consideration  of  the  sacrifice 
which  was  one  day  to  be.  On  this  matter  a  violent 
controversy  raged  among  the  theologians  of  Hol- 
land, at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  and  beginning  of 


NT.W    TESTAMENT.  159 

the  following  centmy,  wliicli  was  carried  on  witli 
an  nnaccountable  acrimony  ;  and  for  a  brief  history 
of  which  the  reader  may  turn  to  Deyling,  Ohss.  Sac. 
vol.  V.  p.  209  ;  Vitringa,  Diss.  Sac.  vol.  iv.  p.  3  ; 
Yenema,  Diss.  Sac.  p.  T2 ;  while  the  fullest  state- 
ment of  what  Cocceius  did  mean,  and  in  his  own 
words,  may  be  found  in  his  treatise,  Utilitas  Dis- 
tbictionis  duorum  Yocahulorum  Scrijyturoi.^  irapk- 
o-eo)?  ct  d(f>ecr€cos,  Oj:)j).  vol.  ix.  p.  121.  Those  who 
at  that  time  opposed  the  Cocceian  scheme,  denied 
that  there  was  any  distinction  between  a</)e<7t?  and 
irdpeat^.  But  in  this  they  erred :  the  Cocceians 
were  undoubtedly  wrong,  in  saying  that  for  the 
faithful  there  was  only  a  irdpeai^,  and  no  acfieac^, 
d/jLapTri/jLUTcov,  in  applying  to  them  what  was  assert- 
ed in  respect  of  the  world  under  the  Old  Covenant ; 
but  they  were  right  in  maintaining  that  irdpeac^ 
was  not  j^urely  and  entirely  equivalent  with  d^eai^. 
Beza,  indeed,  had  already  drawn  attention  to  the 
distinction.  Having  in  his  Latin  Version,  as  first 
published,  taken  no  notice  of  it,  he  acknowledges 
at  a  later  period  his  error,  saying,  Hsec  duo  pluri- 
mum  inter  se  differunt ;  and  now  rendering  Trapeo-t? 
by  '  dissimulatio.' 

In  the  first  place,  the  derivation  would  a  jyiori 
suggest  a  difference  of  meaning ;  if  dcpeac^;  is  re- 
mission, Trdpeac^j  from  irapLTj/iL,  will  be  naturally 
'^prce^ermission '  —  the    irdpeat^    d/jLapryfidrajv,    the 


160  SYXOXYMS    OF   THE 

2yrcetermission  or  passing  ly  of  sins  for  the  present, 
leaving  it  open  in  the  future  either  entirely  to  remit^ 
or  else  to  punish  them,  as  may  seem  good.  And  the 
classical  usage  both  of  irapikvai  and  of  Trdpeai^ 
bears  out  this  distinction.  Thus  Xenophon  {Hipj?- 
vii.  10) :  d/iaprijpLara  ov  '^prj  irapcevaL  aKoXaara.  Of 
Herod  Josephus  tells  us,  that  being  desirous  to 
punish  a  certain  oifence,  yet  for  other  considerations 
he  passed  it  by  {Antt.  xv.  3.  2) :  TrapfJKe  rijv  dpuap- 
rlav.  When  the  Son  of  Sirach  (Ecclus.  xxiii.  2) 
prays  to  God  that  He  woxilcl  not  ''^jpass  hy  "  his  sins, 
he  assuredly  does  not  use  ov  iitj  irapfj  as  =  ov  jult] 
d(j>fj,  but  only  asks  that  he  may  not  be  without  a 
wholesome  chastisement  following  close  on  his 
transgressions.  So,  too,  on  the  contrary,  when  in 
proof  that  Trapecrt?  is  equivalent  to  a(/)eo-t?,  the  fol- 
lowing passage,  from  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus 
{Antt.  Rom.  vii.  37)  is  adduced :  t7]v  yikv  oXoayepr) 
TTupeaiV  ou^  evpovro,  Trjv  he  eh  ')(^p6vov  oaov  rj^iovv 
dva(3o\i^v  eXa^ov,  it  is  not  7rdpeaL<;,  but  6\oa')(epr)<; 
TTupecn^,  which  is  equal  to  acpeat^,  and  no  doubt  the 
historian  added  the  epithet  out  of  a  feeling  that 
irdpeai^  would  have  insufficiently  expressed  his 
meaning  without  it. 

Having  seen,  then,  that  there  is  a  great  jprimd 
facie  probability,  that  St.  Paul  intends  something 
different  by  the  Trdpeai^  dfjLapTrjixaTwv^  in  the  only 
place  where  he  thinks  good  to  use  this  phrase,  from 


NEW   TESTAIVIENT.  ,161 

that  wliicli  lie  intends  in  the  many  where  he  em- 
ploys a^€a-fc9,  that  passage  itself,  namely  Eom.  iii. 
25,  may  now  be  considered  more  closely.  It  appears 
in  our  Version  :  "  Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare 
his  righteousness  for  the  reinission  of  sins  that  are 
past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God."  I  would 
venture  to  render  it  thus :  "  "Whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood, 
for  a  manifestation  of  his  righteousness,  hecaiise  of 
the  ]}rc^ter mission  \hicL  ryv  Trdpecrtv,  not  Bid  t?}9  Tra- 
/oecreo)?],  in  the  forbearance  of  God,  of  the  sins  that 
went  before;"  and  the  exact  meaning  which  I 
should  attach  to  the  words  is  this — "  There  needed," 
St.  Paul  would  say,  "  a  signal  manifestation  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  on  account  of  the  long  prse- 
termission  or  passing  over  of  sins,  in  his  infinite 
forbearance,  without  any  adequate  expression  of  his 
wrath  against  them,  during  all  those  long  years 
which  preceded  the  coming  of  Christ ;  which  mani- 
festation of  God's  righteousness  found  place,  when 
He  set  forth  no  other  and  no  less  than  his  own  Son 
to  be  the  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  sin."  There  had 
been  a  long  period  during  which  God's  extreme  in- 
dignation against  sin  and  sinners  was  not  pro- 
nounced ;  the  time,  that  is,  j)revious  to  the  Incarna- 
tion. Of  course,  this  connivance  of  God,  this  his 
holding  his  peace,  was  only  partial ;  for  St.  Paul  has 


162  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

himself  just  before  declared,  that  the  wrath  of  God 
was  revealed  from  heaven  against  all  -unrighteous- 
ness of  men  (Rom.  i.  IS) ;  and  has  traced  in  a  few 
fearful  lines  some  of  the  ways  in  which  this  revela- 
tion of  his  wrath  displayed  itself  (i.  24 — 32).  Yet 
still,  it  was  the  time  during  which  He  sufiered  tlie 
nations  to  walk  in  their  own  ways  (Acts  xiv.  16) ; 
they  were  the  times  of  ignorance  which  God  winked 
at  (Acts  xvii.  30),  in  other  w^ords,  of  the  avo'^r}  tov 
©eov.  But  this  position  in  regard  of  sin  could,  in 
the  very  nature  of  things,  be  only  transient  and 
provisional.  With  a .  man,  the  prcetermission,  or 
'  prssterition,'  as  Hammond  would  render  it,  of  sins 
will  very  often  be  identical  with  the  remission,  the 
'TtdpeaL^  will  be  one  with  the  a(f}eaL<;.  He  forgets  ; 
he  has  not  power  to  bring  the  long  past  into  judg- 
ment, even  if  he  would ;  or  he  has  not  righteous 
energy  enough  to  will  it.  But  with  an  absolutely 
righteous  God,  the  irdpeat^  can  only  be  temporary, 
and  must  always  find  place  with  a  looking  on  to  a 
final  decision ;  every  sin  must  at  last  either  be  ab- 
solutely forgiven,  or  adequately  avenged.  In  the 
meanwhile,  the  very  Trapecrt?  might  seem  to  call  in 
question  the  absolute  righteousness  of  Him,  who 
was  thus  content  to  pass  by  and  to  connive.  God 
held  his  peace,  and  it  was  only  too  near  to  the  evil 
thought  of  man  to  think  wickedly  that  He  was  such 
an  one  as  himself,  morally  indifi'erent  to  good  and 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  163 

to  evil ;  but  now  (eV  rw  vvv  /cacpw)  God,  by  the 
sacrifice  of  his  Son,  lias  rendered  such  a  perverse 
misunderstanding  of  his  meaning  in  the  j^ast  dis- 
simulation of  sin  for  ever  impossible.  Bengel  ex- 
presses Avell  this  same  view,  whicli  I  cannot  doubt 
is  the  correct  one,  of  the  passage  :  Objectum  praster- 
missionis  [Tra/jeo-eo)?],  peccata;  tolerantise  [avoxrji\, 
peccatores,  contra  quos  non  est  persecutus  Dens  jus 
suum.  Et  liiBC  et  ilia  quam  diu  fuit,  non  ita  appa- 
ruit  justi'tia  Dei :  non  enim  tarn  vehementer  visus 
est  irasci  peccato,  sed  peccatorem  sibi  relinquere, 
d/iekelv,  negligere.  Ileb.  viii.  0.  At  in  sanguine 
Christi  et  morte  propitiatoria  ostensa  est  Dei  jas- 
titia,  cum  vindicta  adversus  peccatum  ipsum,  ut 
esset  ipse  Justus,  et  cum  zelo  pro  peccatoris  libera- 
tione,  ut  esset  ipse  justificans.  Compare  Hammond 
{in  loc),  who  has  seized  excellently  well  the  true 
distinction  between  the  two  words. 

He,  then,  that  is  partaker  of  the  a(^ecn<;^  has  his 
sins  forgiven,  so  that,  unless  he  bring  them  back 
upon  himself  by  new  and  further  disobedience 
(Matt,  xviii.  32,  34 ;  2  Pet.  i.  9 ;  ii.  20),  they  shall 
not  be  imputed  to  him,  or  mentioned  agaiost  him 
any  more ;  while  the  irdpeai^  is  indeed  a  benefit,  but 
a  very  subordinate  one  ;  it  is  the  present  passing  by 
of  sin,  the  suspension  of  its  punishment,  the  not 
shutting  up  of  all  ways  of  mercy  against  the  sinner, 
the  giving  to  him  of  space  and  helps  for  repentance, 


164  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

as  it  is  said  at  AYiscl.  xi.  24 :  Trapopa^  afxapTt'i^iara 
avOpcoTTwv  eh  pberdvoiav.  If  this  repentance  follow, 
then  the  irdpeai'^  will  be  swallowed  up  in  the  d(pe(Ti<;, 
but  if  not,  then  the  punishment,  suspended  but  not 
averted,  in  its  due  time  will  arrive  (Luke  xiii.  9). 


§  xxxiv. — fiwpoXoyia,  ala')(po\oyla,  evrpaireXia. 

McopoXoyla,  a  word  employed  by  Aristotle,  but 
not  of  frequent  use  till  the  later  Greek,  is  rendered 
well  in  the  Yulgate,  on  the  one  occasion  of  its  oc- 
currence in  Scripture,  Eph.  iv.  5,  by  '  stultiloquium,' 
a  comj)Ound  word,  it  may  be  first  coined  by  Plautus 
{Jlil.  GloT.  ii.  3.  25) ;  although  one  which  did  not 
find  more  favour  and  currency  in  the  after  language 
of  Eome,  than  the  '  stultiloquy '  with  which  Jeremy 
Taylor  sought  to  reproduce  it,  with  us.  It  will  in- 
clude not  merely  the  irav  prujua  dpybv  of  our  Lord, 
(Matt.  xii.  36),  but  in  good  part  also  the  Tra?  \oyo<; 
aairpo^  of  his  Apostle  (Eph.  iv.  29) ;  discourse,  as 
everything  else  about  the  Christian,  needing  to  be 
seasoned  with  the  salt  of  grace,  and  being  in  danger 
of  growing  first  insipid,  and  then  corrupt,  without 
it. 

It  seems  to  me,  that  those  who  stop  short  with 
the  dpya  ptj/jbara,  as  if  those  alone  were  included  in 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  165 

the  word,  fail  to  exhaust  the  fulness  of  its  meaning. 
Thus  Calvin  too  weakly  :  Sermones  inepti  ac  inanes, 
nulliusque  frngis ;  and  even  Jeremy  Taylor,  in  his 
sermons  On  the  Good  and  Evil  Tongue  (Serm.  xxxii. 
j)t.  2),  hardly  comes  up  to  the  full  force  of  the^'ord. 
The  remarkable  passage  in  which  he  unfolds  the 
meaning  of  the  fxapoXoyla  begins  thus :  '•  That 
which  is  here  meant  by  stultiloquy  or  foolish  speak- 
ing is  the  '  lubricum  verbi,'  as  St.  Ambrose  calls  it, 
the  '  slipping  with  the  tongue '  which  prating  peo- 
ple often  suffer,  whose  discourses  betray  the  vanity 
of  their  spirit,  and  discover  '  the  hidden  man  of  the 
heart.' "  In  heathen  writings,  /xcopoXoyia  may  very 
well  be  used  as  little  more  than  equivalent  to  a8o- 
\ea-)(^La^  '  random  talk,'  and  ficopoXoyetv  as  equivalent 
to  \rjpelv  (Plutarch,  De  Garr,  4) ;  but  words  obtain 
a  new  earnestness  when  they  are  assumed  into  the 
ethical  terminology  of  Christ's  school.  JSJ'or  in  seek- 
ing to  enter  fully  into  this  word's  meaning,  ought 
vs'e  to  leave  out  of  sight  the  greater  emphasis  which 
the  words  '  fool,'  '  foolish,'  '  folly,'  obtain  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture,  than  elsewhere  they  have,  or 
can  have.  There  is  the  positive  of  folly  as  well  as 
the  negative  to  be  taken  account  of,  when  we  are 
weighing  the  force  of  ixwpoXoyia :  it  is  that  '  talk  of 
fools,'  which  is  folly  and  sin  togetlier. 

Ala-^pokoyla  also  occurs  only  once  in  the  Xew 
Testament  (CoL  iii.  bi,  and  is  not  to  be  cunfounded 


IGG  -  SYKONYMS    OF    THE 

with  ala^porris^  Epli.  Y.  4.  By  it  the  Greek  Fathers 
(see  Suicer,  Thes.  s.  y.),  and  most  expositors  after 
them,  haYC  understood,  obscene  discourse,  '  tnrpilo- 
qiiinm,'  snch  communication  as  ministers  to  Y\'an- 
tonness,  6')(rjfia  iropvela^,  as  Chrjsostom  calls  it. 
Thus  Clemens  of  Alexandria  has  a  chapter  in  his 
Pcedagogus  (ii.  6),  UepX  ala^poXo^la^^  in  which  he 
recognises  no  other  meaning  but  this.  Xor  is  it 
otherwise  with  our  oy'u  Yersion,  which  has  rendered 
the  word  by  '  filthy  communication.'  JSTow,  beyond 
a  doubt,  alcrxpoXoyLa  has  sometimes  this  sense  pre- 
dominantly, or  cYcn  exclusiYely ;  thus  Xenophon, 
De  Lac.  Rep.  v.  6 ;  Aristotle,  De  Rep.  Yii.  15  ;  EjdIc- 
tetus,  Man.  xxxiii.  16 ;  and  see  Becker's  Charikles^ 
1st  ed.  Yol.  ii.  p.  264.  But  Yery  often,  indeed  more 
generally,  by  alaxpoXoyia  is  indicated  all  foul- 
mouthed  abusiYeness  of  CYcry  kind,  not  excluding 
this,  one  of  the  most  obYious  kinds,  most  ready  to 
hand,  and  most  offensiYe,  but  still  not  intending  by 
the  alaxpd  of  the  word,  to  point  at  such  alone. 
Thus  Polybius,  Yiii.  13.  8  ;  xxxi.  10.  4 :  alaxpoXoyla 
KOL  XotSopia  Kara  tgv  (SaaiXeco'^ :  and  compare  the 
phrase  ala^poXoyia  icj)'  lepoh.  Plutarch  also  {De 
Lib.  Educ.  14),  denouncing  all  alaxpokoyia  as  un- 
becoming to  youth  ingenuously  brought  up,  includes 
in  it  evei'y  license  of  the  ungoYerned  tongue,  em- 
ploying itself  in  the  abuse  of  others;  and  I  am 
persuaded  that  St.  Paul,  usiug  the  word,  is  forbid- 


NEW    TESTAilENT.  107 

cling  the  same.  The  context  or  company  in  which 
the  word  is  found  goes  far  to  prove  this ;  for  all  the 
other  things  which  he  is  here  prohibiting,  are  the 
outbreaks  of  a  loveless  spirit  toward  our  neighbour  ; 
and  so,  I  cannot  but  believe,  is  this. 

But  by  far  the  most  interesting  word  in  this 
group  remains  still  to  be  considered.  EvTpaireXLa, 
a  finely  selected  word  of  the  world's  use,  which 
however  St.  Paul  uses  not  in  the  world's  sense,  like 
its  synonyms  just  considered,  is  only  met  with  once 
in  the  JSTew  Testament  (Eph.  v.  4).  Derived  from 
6v  and  TpeireaOai^  that  which  easily  turns,  and  in 
this  way  adapts  itself  to  the  shifting  circumstances 
of  the  moment,  to  the  moods  and  conditions  of 
those  with  whom  at  the  moment  it  may  deal ; '  it 
has  not  of  necessity,  nor  indeed  had  it  more  than 
slightly  and  occasionally  in  classical  use,  that  evil 
signification  which,  in  the  use  of  St.  Paul,  and  of 
the  ethical  writers  of  the  Church,  it  exclusively  ac- 
quired. On  the  contrary,  Thucydides,  in  that  pane- 
gyric of  the  Athenians  which  he  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  Pericles,  employs  evrpaTreXco^  (ii.  41)  as 
=  €vjavi]Tm,  to  characterize  the  versatility,  the 
'  versatile  ingenium,'  of  his  countrymen.  Aristotle 
also,  as  is  well  kno^vn,  gives  praise  to  the  evrpdire- 

^  That  St.  Paul  himself  could  be  eiirpaTreAos  in  this,  the  better 
sense  of  the  word,  he  has  given  the  most  illustrious  proofs,  Acts 
XX si.  29. 


108  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

iVo?  or  e'mhe^io<i  {Ethic.  Nic.  iv.  8),  as  one  who  keeps 
the  due  mean  between  the  P<£nxo\6yQ<^  and  ci'ypoiKos 
in  whatever  pleasanty  or  banter  he  may  allow  him- 
self. He  is  no  mere  yeXaroiroco^  or  bniioon ;  never 
exceeds  the  limits  of  becoming  mirth,  nor  ceases  to 
be  the  gentleman ;  and  we  find  in  Plato  {Pol.  viii. 
563  «),  evrpairekia  joined  with  ycipL^vTi<jyb6<; :  as  it 
is  in  Plutarch  {pe  Adul.  et  Am.  7),  in  Josephus 
{Antt.  xii.  4.  3),  and  in  Philo  {Ze^.  ad  Cai.  45), 
with  xtijOt?. 

At  the  same  time,  there  were  not  wanting  even 
in  classical  usage,  anticipations  of  that  more  unfa- 
vourable signification  which  St.  Paul  should  stamp 
ujDon  the  word,  though  they  appear  most  plainly  in 
the  adjective  evrpaTreXo^ :  thus,  see  Isocrates,  vii. 
49 ;  and  Pindar,  Pyth.  i.  93,  where  Dissen  traces 
well  the  downward  progress  of  the  word :  Primum 
est  de  facilitate  in  motu,  tum  ad  mores  transfertur, 
et  indicat  hominem  temporibus  inservientem,  dici- 
turque  tum  de  sermon e  urbano,  lepido,  faceto,  im- 
primis cum  levitatis  et  assentationis,  simulationis 
notatione.  In  respect  of  only  gradually  acquiring 
an  unfavourable  significance,  evrpairekia  has  a  his- 
tory closely  resembling  that  of  the  Latin  '  m-bani- 
tas,'  which  would  be  the  hapjDiest  equivalent  by 
which  to  render  it,  as  indeed  Erasmus  has  done ; 
'  scurrilitas,'  which  the  Yulgate  has,  is  altogether 
at  fault.     There  needs  only  to  quote  in  proof  the 


NEW   TESTA3IENT.  169 

words  of  Cicero,  Pro  Ccel.  3 :  Contumelia,  si  petu- 
lantiiis  jactatur,  convicium ;  si  facetius,  urbanitas 
nominatur ;  which  agrees  with  the  striking  phrase 
of  Aristotle,  that  the  evrpairekla  is  TreTraLSev/jLevr] 
v^pL<; :  cf.  Phitarch,  Cic.  50.  Ah'eady  in  Cicero's 
time  (see  Hhet.  ii.  12)  ^  urbanitas '  had  begun  to  ob- 
tain that  questionable  significance,  which,  in  the 
usage  of  Tacitus  {Hist.  ii.  88)  and  Seneca  {De  Ird, 
i.  28),  it  far  more  distinctly  acquired. 

Biit  the  fineness  of  the  form  in  which  evil  might 
array  itself  could  not  make  a  Paul  tolerant  of  the 
evil  itself;  he  did  not  consider  that  sin,  by  losing 
all  its  coarseness,  lost  half,  or  any  j)art  of,  its  mis- 
chief; on  the  contrary,  that  it  might  so  become  far 
more  dangerous  than  it  was  before.  In  the  finer 
talk  of  the  world,  its  ^persiflage,'  its  'badinage,' 
there  is  that  which  would  attract  many,  whom  scur- 
rile  bufi*oonery  would  only  revolt  and  repel ;  who 
would  in  like  manner  be  in  no  danger  of  lending 
their  tongue  or  ear  to  foul-mouthed  abuse.  A  far 
subtler  sin  is  noted  here  than  in  either  of  the  other 
words,  and  not  a  few  would  be  now  touched,  whom 
the  preceding  monition  had  failed  to  find  out.  Thus, 
Bengel  (m  loc.)  has  well  observed  :  Hcec  subtilior 
quam  turpitudo  aut  stultiloquium ;  na?7h  ingenio 
nititur ;  and  Jerome :  De  prudenti  mente  descendit, 
et  consulto  appetit  qiitcdara  vel  urbana  verba,  vel 
rustica,  vel  turpia,  vel  faceta.  I  sliould  only  object 
8 


170  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

to  the  'rustica  vel  turpia,'  whicL.  belong  rather  to 
the  other  forms  in  Avhich  men  offend  with  the  tongue 
than  to  this.  It  always  belongs  to  the  €vrpdireko^^ 
as  Chrysostom  notes,  aareia  Xejeiv.  He  keeps  ever 
in  mind  the  observation  of  Cicero  [jDe  Orat.  ii.  58) : 
Hsec  ridentur  vel  maxime,  qu83  notant  et  designant 
turpitudinem  aliqiiam  non  tnrj)iter.  There  would 
need  polish,  refinement,  knowledge  of  the  world, 
wit,  to  be  an  evrpdireXo^  even  in  this  worser  sense 
of  the  word ;  —  although  these,  of  course,  enlisted 
in  the  service  of  sin,  and  not  in  that  of  the  truth. 
The  very  profligate  old  man  in  the  Ifiles  Gloriosus 
of  Plautus,  iii.  1.  42 — 52,  who  at  the  same  time 
j)rides  himself,  and  with  reason,  on  his  wit,  his  ele- 
gance and  refinement  (cavillator  lepidus,  facetus)  is 
exactly  the  evrpdireko^; :  and  remarkably  enough, 
when  we  remember  that  empaireKla  being  only  ex- 
pressly forbidden  once  in  Scripture,  is  forbidden  to 
Ephesians,  we  find  him  bringing  out  that  all  this 
was  to  be  expected  from  him,  being  that  he  was  an 
Ej)hesian  :  Post  Ephesi  sum  natus  ;  non  enim  in 
Apulis,  non  Animulge. 

While  then  by  all  these  words  are  indicated  sins 
of  the  tongue,  it  is  yet  with  a  difference.  In  fiwpo- 
Xoyia  the  foolishness,  in  ala')(^po\oyLa  the  foulness, 
in  evrpairekla  the  false  refinement,  of  discourse 
which  is  not  seasoned  with  the  salt  of  grace,  are  es- 
j)ecially  noted. 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  171 

§  XXXV. — XarpevcOy  Xetrovpyeco. 

In  both  these  words  lies  the  notion  of  service, 
but  of  service  under  certain  special  limitations  in 
the  second,  as  compared  with  the  first.  Aarpeve'Lv, 
as  indicated  by  the  words  with  which  it  is  allied, 
Xdrpc^, '  an  hired  servant,'  Xdrpov, '  hire,'  is  properly, 
^  to  serve  for  hire.'  Already,  however,  in  classical 
Greek  both  it  and  Xarpela  are  occasionally  trans- 
ferred from  the  service  of  men  to  the  service  of  the 
higher  powers  ;  as  by  Plato,  Aj?ol.  23  c:  r]  tov  Qeov 
Xarpeia:  cf.  Phmdr.  24:4-6;  and  the  meaning,  which 
in  Scripture  is  the  only  one  which  the  words  know, 
is  anticipated  in  part.  In  the  Septnagint  Xarpevecv 
is  never  used  to  express  any  other  service  but  either 
that  of  the  true  God,  or  of  the  false  gods  of  hea- 
thenism. The  single  seeming  exception,  Deut. 
xxviii.  48,  is  not  such  in  fact ;  so  that  Augustine 
has  perfect  right  when  he  says  {De  Civ.  Dei,  x.  1, 
2) :  Aarpeta  secundum  consuetudinem  qua  locuti 
sunt  qui  nobis  divina  eloquia  condiderunt,  aut  sem- 
per, aut  tam  frequenter  ut  psene  semper,  ea  dicitur 
servitus  quse  pertinet  ad  colendum  Deum. 

AecTovpyeLv  is  a  word  boasting  of  a  somewhat 
nobler  beginning ;  it  signified,  at  first,  to  serve  the 
state  in  a  public  oflice  or  function  ;   from  Xelros 


1Y2  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

(  ==  Sr]fjb6(jLos;)j  and  epyov.  It  resembled  Xarpevecv 
in  this,  tliat  it  was  occasionally  transferred  to  the 
highest  ministry  of  all,  the  ministry  of  the  gods 
(Diodorus  Siculus,  i.  21).  When  the  Christian 
Church  was  forming  its  terminology,  which  it  did 
partly  by  shaping  new  words,  but  partly  also  by 
elevating  old  ones  to  higher  than  their  previous 
uses,  it  more  readily,  as  regarded  the  latter,  adopted 
those  which  had  before  been  employed  in  the  civil 
and  political  life  of  the  Greeks,  than  such  as  had 
plaj^ed  their  part  in  religious  matters ;  and  this, 
even  when  it  was  seeking  for  the  expression  of  reli- 
gious truth.  The  reasons  which  induced  this  were 
the  same  which  caused  it  more  willingly  to  turn 
basilicas, —  buildings,  that  is,  which  had  been  used 
in  civil  life, —  than  temples,  into  churches  ;  namely, 
because  they  were  less  haunted  with  the  clinging 
associations  of  heathenism.  Of  the  fact  itself  we 
have  a  notable  example  in  the  words  Xeirovpyo^, 
XecTovpyla,  XecTovpyelu.  It  is  probably  well  known 
to  all  how  prominent  a  place  in  ecclesiastical  lan- 
guage these  words  assumed.  At  the  same  time,  in 
this  case  also  the  transition  had  been  made  more 
easy,  the  way  for  it  had  been  j^repared,  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint ;  and  by  Philo  {De  Prof.  46i).  Is^either  by 
these,  however,  nor  yet  by  the  Christian  writers 
who  followed,  were  the  words  of  this  group  so  en- 
tirely alienated  from  their  primary  uses  as  Xarpeia 


NEW    TESTA^LEXT.  173 

and  Xarpeveiv  had  been ;  being  still  occasionally 
used  for  the  ministry  loito  men  (2  Sam.  xiii.  18 ;  1 
Kings  X.  5 ;  2  Kings  iv.  13  ;  Eom.  xv.  27  ;  Phil.  ii. 
25,  30). 

From  the  distinction  already  existing  between 
Xarpevetv  and  Xecrovpyeiv,  before  the  Church  had 
anything  to  do  with  them,  namely  that  Xarpevetv 
was  '  to  serve,'  XeLrovpyelv,  '  to  serve  in  an  office  and 
ministry,'  are  to  be  explained  the  diflerent  uses  to 
which  they  are  severally  turned  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment, as,  indeed,  previously  also  in  the  Septuagint. 
To  serve  God  is  the  duty  of  all  men ;  the  Xarpevetv, 
therefore,  and  the  Xarpeia  are  demanded  of  the 
whole  people  (Exod.  iv.  23 ;  Deut.  x.  12 ;  Josh.  xxiv. 
31 ;  Matt.  iv.  10 ;  Acts  vii.  7 ;  Eom.  ix.  4) ;  but  to 
serve  Him  in  special  offices  and  ministries  is  the 
duty  and  ]3rivilege  only  of  a  few,  who  are  set  apart 
to  the  same ;  and  thus  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
Xetrovpyecv  and  the  Xetrovpyia  are  ascribed  only  to 
the  priests  and  Levites  who  were  separated  to  min- 
ister in  holy  things  ;  they  only  are  Xetrovpyot 
(Xumb.  iv.  21  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  11  ;  Xehem.  x.  39  ; 
Ezek.  xliv.  27) ;  which  language,  mutatis  mutandis, 
reappears  in  the  Isew ;  where  not  merely  is  that 
old  priesthood  and  ministry  designated  by  this  lan- 
guage (Luke  i.  23  ;  Heb.  ix.  21 ;  x.  11),  but  that  of 
apostles,  prophets,  and  teachers  in  the  Church  (Acts 
xiii.  2 ;  Eom.  xv.  16 ;  Phil.  ii.  17),  as  well  as  that 


174  STNONT^IS    OF   THE 

of  the  Great  High  Priest  of  our  profession,  who  is 
TO)v  dytcbv  \€LTovpy6<s  (Heb.  viii.  2)/ 

It  may  be  urged  against  the  distinction  here 
drawn  that  Xarpeveiv  and  Xarpeia  are  sometimes  ap- 
plied to  official  ministries,  as  at  Heb.  ix.  1,  6.  This 
is,  of  course,  true;  just  as  where  two  circles  have 
the  same  centre,  the  greater  will  necessarily  include 
the  less.  The  notion  of  service  is  such  a  centre 
here ;  in  XeLTovpyelv  this  service  finds  a  certain 
limitation,  in  that  it  is  service  in  cm  office :  it  fol- 
lows that  every  \uTovpyia  w^ill  of  necessity  be  a 
Xarpeia^  but  not,  vice  versa,  every  Xarpeia  a  Xetrovp- 
yia.  I  know  no  passage  which  better  brings  out 
the  distinction  between  these  two  words  which  I 
have  sought  to  trace,  than  Ecclus.  iv.  14,  where 
both  occur:  ol  Xar pevovres  amfi  [i.e.  rfj  ^o(f>icf] 
Xenov pyrjaovaLv  'Ay la.  "They  that  sei've  her, 
shall  'minister  to  the  Holy  One." 

^  In  later  ecclesiastical  use  there  has  been  sometimes  the  at- 
tempt to  push  the  special  application  of  Kenovpyia  still  further, 
and  to  limit  its  use  to  those  prayers  and  offices  which  stand  in 
more  immediate  relation  to  the  Holy  Eucharist. 


NEW    TEST  ANIENT.  J  <  O 


§  xxxvi. — TrivT]';,  'TrT(0')(6<i. 

Ix  both  these  words  the  sense  of  poverty,  and 
of  poverty  in  this  world's  goods,  is  involved  ;  yet 
have  they  severally  meanings  which  are  exclusively 
their  own.  It  is  true  that  irevrj<;  and  'in(D')(6s  contin- 
ually occur  together  in  the  Septuagint,  in  the  Psalms 
especially,  with  no  rigid  demarcation  of  their  mean- 
ings (as  at  Ps.  xxxix.  18  ;  Ixxiii.  22 ;  Ixxxi.  4  ;  cf. 
Ezek.  xviii.  12 ;  xxii.  29);  very  much  as  our  "poor 
and  needy  ; "'  and  whatever  distinction  may  exist  in 
the  Hebrew  between  'p'^^K  and  ''3?,  the  Alexandrian 
translators  have  either  considered  it  not  rej)roduci- 
ble  by  the  help  of  these  words,  or  have  not  cared  to 
reproduce  it ;  for  they  have  no  fixed  rule  in  regard 
of  them,  translating  the  one  and  the  other  by  tttci)- 
;vo?  and  irevq^  alike.  Still  there  are  passages  which 
show  that  they  were  perfectly  aware  of  the  distinc- 
tion, and  would,  where  it  seemed  to  them  needful, 
maintain  it;  occasions  upon  which  they  employ 
irkvr}^  (as  Deut.  xxiv.  16,  IT  ;  2  Sam.  xii.  1,  3,  4), 
and  where,  as  will  presently  be  evident,  irrco'xp'i 
would  have  been  manifestly  unfit. 

TlevT]^  occurs  only  once  in  the  Xew  Testament  (1 
Cor.  ix.  9),  while  tttooxo^  some  thirty  or  forty  times. 
Derived  from  irkvofiaL,  and  connected  with  7r6vo<;, 


176  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

irovio/jLai,  and  tlie  Latin  '  pennria/  it  properly  signi- 
fies one  so  poor  that  he  earns  liis  daily  bread  by  Lis 
labour;  Hesycliius  calls  liim  well  avToSidKovo<;,  as 
one  who  by  his  own  hands  ministers  to  his  own  ne- 
cessities. The  word  does  not  indicate  extreme  want, 
or  anything  ap2:)roaching  to  it,  any  more  than  the 
'  pauper '  and  '  paupertas '  of  the  Latin ;  but  only 
the  '  res  angusta '  of  one  to  whom  TrXouo-to?  would 
be  an  inappropriate  epithet.  What  was  the  popular 
definition  of  a  irevrj^;  we  learn  from  Xenophon  {2Lem. 
iv.  2.  37  :  tou?  \xh>  oljiau  /jlt)  licava  e')(QVTa<=;  eh  cl  Be? 
reXelv,  irivrjra^;  •  tou9  5e  TrXelco  TOiV  Uavcov  irXovalov'^. 
nevr)<i  was  an  epithet  commonly  apj)lied  to  Socrates 
(Xenophon,  (Econ.  ii.  3) ;  and  irevla  he  claims  more 
than  once  for  himself  (Plato,  Aj^ol.  23,  c;  31  e). 
"What  his  irevla  was,  he  explains  in  the  passage  from 
Xenophon  referred  to  ;  namely,  that  all  which  ho 
had,  if  sold,  would  not  bring  five  Attic  minse.  So, 
too,  the  TJevearai  in  Thessaly,  (if,  indeed,  the  deri- 
vation of  the  name  from  ireveaOau  is  to  stand,)  were 
a  subject  population,  but  not  reduced  to  abject 
want ;  on  the  contrary,  retaining  partial  rights  as 
boors  or  cultivators  of  the  soil. 

But  while  the  TreV?;?  is  '  pauper,'  the  7rT&>;)^09  is 
^mendicus;'  he  is  the  'beggar,'  and  lives  not  by 
his  own  labour  or  industry,  but  on  other  men's 
alms  (Luke  xvi.  20,  21) ;  one  therefore  whom  Plato 
would  not  endure  in  his  ideal  State  {Legg.  xi.  936  c). 


NEW  testa:mext.  177 

If  indeed  we  fall  back  on  etymologies,  7rpoaaLT7j<;  (a 
word  which  ought  to  be  replaced  in  the  text  at 
John  ix.  8),  or  iTTaLTr}^;^  would  be  the  more  exactly 
equivalent  to  our  '  beggar.'  Tertullian  long  ago 
noted  the  distinction  between  irrcoxo'i  and  Trevrj^; 
{Adv.  Marc.  iv.  14),  for  having  to  do  with  our 
Lord's  words,  (jLaKaptoL  ol  TrTco-^ol  (Luke  vi.  20),  he 
changes  the  '  ^eati  pauperes,^  which  still  retains  its 
place  in  the  Yulgate,  into  ^  Beati  mendici,^  and  jus- 
tifies the  change,  observing,  Sic  enim  exigit  inter- 
pretatio  vocabuli  quod  in  Graeco  est. 

The  words  then  are  markedly  distinct ;  the  TreV?;? 
is  so  poor  that  he  earns  his  bread  by  daily  labour, 
the  irrwyo^  is  so  poor  that  he  only  obtains  his  living 
by  begging.  The  7rTaj;^6?  has  nothing,  the  irkvy]^  has 
nothing  superfluous.  (See  Doderlein,  Lat.  Synon. 
vol.  iii.  p.  117.)  The  two,  rrevia  (=  paupertas)  and 
TTTwx^i-a  (=  egestas),  may  be  sisters,  as  one  in  Aris- 
tophanes will  have  them  {Plut.  549) ;  but  if  such, 
yet  the  latter  very  far  more  destitute  of  the  world's 
goods  than  the  former,  and  indeed  Uevia  in  that 
passage  seems  inclined  to  disallow  wholly  any  such 
near  relationship  as  this.  The  words  of  Aristopha- 
nes, in  which  he  plays  the  synonymist  between 
them,  have  been  often  quoted  : 

TTTa'XoC  [xkv  yap  Plos,  tv  <rv  Xeyeis,  ^r)v  icTTiv  /xtjSej/  exoi'Ta-  rov  Se 
Trej/TjTos,  ^y\v  (psioo/xevou,  Koi  to7s  epyois  'Kpoai-)(^Qina,  irtpiyiyv^ada.i 
5'  avTw  jxriZ^v,  jxr]  /levroi  /xtjS'  iiriXeiTreiu. 

8* 


178  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 


§  xxxvii. — 6v/x6<;,  opjr]^  irapopyia^o';. 

QvfjLo^  and  opyrj  are  found  several  times  together 
in  the  N'ew  Testament,  as  at  Rom.  ii.  8  ;  Ej^h.  iv.  3 ; 
Col.  iii.  8 ;  Rev.  xix.  15 ;  often  also  in  the  Septua- 
gint,  2  Chron.  xxix.  10 ;  Mic.  v.  15 ;  and  often  also 
in  other  Greek  (Isocrates,  xii.  81 ;  Polybius,  vi.  56. 
11 ;  Josephns,  Antt.  xx.  5.  3 ;  Plutarch,  JDe  Coh. 
Ird^  2) ;  nor  are  they  found  only  in  the  connexion 
of  juxtaj)osition,  but  one  of  them  made  dependent 
on  the  other ;  thus  ^u/xo?  t^?  0/37^9  (Rev.  xvi.  9 ;  cf. 
Job  iii.  IT ;  Josh.  vii.  26) ;  while  0/37^  OvpLov^  not 
occurring  in  the  New  Testament,  is  of  constant  re- 
currence in  the  Old  (Ps.  Ixxvii.  49 ;  Lam.  i.  12 ; 
Isa.  XXX.  27;  Hos.  xi.  9). 

When  these  words,  after  a  considerable  anterior 
history,  came  to  settle  down  on  the  i:)assion  of  anger, 
as  the  strongest  of  all  passions,  im^Dulses  and  desires, 
and  to  be  used  predominantly  as  expressions  of  it 
(see  Donaldson,  JSfew  Cratylus,  pp.  675 — 679),  the 
distinguishing  of  them  one  from  another,  a  good 
deal  occupied  grammarians  and  philologers.  They 
felt,  and  rightly,  that  the  existence  of  a  multitude 
of  passages  in  which  the  w^ords  were  perfectly  in- 
differently used  (as  Plato,  Legg.  867),  made  nothing 
against  the  fact  of  such  a  distinction ;  all  which,  in 


NEv/  testa:meisT.  179 

seeking  to  desjnonjmize  the  two,  tliey  assumed 
was,  that  the  words  could  not  be  indifferently  used 
in  all  cases.  The  general  result  of  their  disquisi- 
tions is,  that  in  ^u/^o?  ^  (connected  with  Qvo^^  and 
derived,  according  to  Plato,  airo  rrj^  6v(T€co<;,  Crat. 
419  <?),  is  more  of  the  turbulent  commotion,  the 
boiling  agitation  of  the  feelings,  either  presently  to 
subside  and  disappear, — like  the  Latin  '  excandes- 
centia,'  which  Cicero  defines  {Tusc.  iv.  9),  Ira  nas- 
cens  et  modo  desistens, —  or  else  to  settle  down  into 
op7?7,  wherein  is  more  of  an  abiding  and  settled 
habit  of  the  mind  {'  ira  inveterata ' ),  'with  the  j)ur- 
pose  of  revenge  ;  the  German  '  Zorn.' 

This  the  more  23assionate,  and  at  the  same  time 
more  temporary,  character  of  6vii6^  {6v[jloI  accord- 
ing to  Jeremy  Taylor,  are  "great  but  transient 
angers"),  may  explain  a  distinction  of  Xenophon, 
namely  that  Ovfio^  in  a  horse  is  what  opyrj  is  in  a 
man  {De  Be  Eqiiest.\K.  2;  cf.  Plutarch,  Gryll.  4, 
in  fine).  Thus  the  Stoics,  who  dealt  much  in  defi- 
nitions and  distinctions,  defined  ^u/a6?  as  op^r] 
apxojJ'evT]  (Diogenes  Laertius,  vii.  1.  63.  114) ;  and 
Ammonius  :  6v/xb<;  fiev  iari  Trpoo-Kacpo^"  6pj7]  Be 
iTo\v^p6vio<;  pLvrjaiKaKia.     Aristotle  too,  in  his  won- 

'  It  is  commouly  translated  *  furor'  in  the  Vulgate.  Auj'ustine 
{Enarr.  in  Ps.  Ixxxvii.  8)  is  dissatisfied  with  the  application  of  this 
word  to  God,  'furor'  beiug  commonly  atti'ibuted  to  those  out  of  a 
sound  mind,  and  proposes  'indignatio'  in  its  room. 


180  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

derful  comj)arison  of  old  age  and  youth,  character- 
izes the  angers  of  old  men  {Hhet.  ii.  11) :  koX  ol 
Ovfiol,  6^€L^  /jL€v  elatVj  aaOevel^  hi — like  fire  in  straw, 
qnickly  blazing  np,  and  as  quickly  extinguished. 
Origen  {hi  Ps.  ii.  5,  Oj)}?.  vol.  ii.  p.  51:1)  has  a  discus- 
sion on  the  words,  and  arrives  at  the  same  results  : 
hiai^epeL  he  Ovfio^  opjr}'^,  rS  Ov/jlov  fiev  elvai  opyiju 
avadvfJLLWiievi-jV  koI  en  eKKaL0(iev7]V'  opyrjv  Be  ope^LV 
dvTLTip,cop7jaeco^.  This  agrees  with  the  Stoic  defini- 
tion of  opyy],  that  it  is   eVi^f/x/a  riyCtw^/a?. 

The  TrapopyicTfjio^  of  Eph.  iv.  26, —  a  word  which 
does  not  occur  in  classical  Greek,  but  several  times 
in  the  Septuagint,  as  at  1  EJin.  xv.  30 ;  2  Kin.  xix.  3, — 
is  not  =  opyi]^  however  we  may  translate  it  '  wrath.' 
This  it  cannot  be ;  for  the  Trapopyiapio^  there  is  ab- 
solutely forbidden  ;  the  sun  shall  not  go  down  upon 
it;  whereas  under  certain  conditions  opyrj  is  a  right- 
eous passion  to  entertain.  The  Scripture  has  nothing 
in  common  with  the  Stoics'  absolute  condemnation 
of  anger ;  it  takes  no  such  loveless  view  of  other 
men's  sins  as  his  who  said,  aeavrov  pir)  rdpaaae' 
d/naprdvet  rt? ;  eavrw  d/juaprdveL  (Marc.  Ant.  iv.  46). 
It  inculcates  no  dirddeia,  but  only  a  p^erpcoirddeia  : 
and  even  as  Aristotle  {Ethic.  Nic.  vii.  7),  in  agree- 
ment with  all  deeper  ethical  writei-s,  had  affirmed 
before,  that  when  guided  by  reason  anger  is  a  right 
affection,  so  the  Scripture  permits,  and  not  only  per- 
mits, but  when  the  right  occasion  for  it  has  arrived, 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  181 

demands  it.  This  all  the  profoimder  teachers  of  the 
Church  have  allowed  ;  thus  Gregory  of  Xyssa : 
ayaOhv  ktt)p6<;  iarcv  6  6v/i6<i,  orav  rod  Xoyicr/jLov  viro- 
^vyiov  yevrjTai :  Angustine  {De  Civ.  JDei,  ix.  5) :  In 
discipliua  nostra  non  tarn  quseritur  iitrum  pins  ani- 
mus irascatur,  sed  cjuare  irascatur.  There  is  a 
"  wrath  of  God,"  a  wrath  also  of  the  merciful  Son 
of  Man  (Mark  iii.  5),  and  a  wrath  which  righteous 
men  not  merely  may,  but  as  they  are  righteous,  must 
feel;  nor  can  there  be  a  surer  and  sadder  token  of  an 
utterly  prostrate  moral  condition  than  the  not  be- 
ing able  to  be  angry  with  sin  —  and  sinners  ;  see  the 
words  of  Plato  {Legg.  T31  h) :  dv/jLoetSf]  fiev  ')(^pr}  iravra 
dvSpa  elvat.  k.  t.  X.^  St.  Paul  is  not  therefore,  as  so 
many  understand  him,  condescending  here  to  hu- 
man infirmity,  and  saying,  "Your  aDger  shall  not 
be  imputed  to  you  as  a  sin,  if  you  put  it  away  be- 
fore nightfall "  (see  Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v.  opy?}) ;  but 
rather,  "Be  ye  angry,  yet  in  this  anger  of  yours 
suffer  no  sinful  element  to  mingle ;"  there  is  that 
which  may  cleave  even  to  a  righteous  anger,  the 
irapopyKTfjLo'^^  the  irritation,  the  exasperation  ('exa- 
cerbatio'),  which  must  be  dismissed  at  once;  that 
so,  being  defecated  of  this  impurer  element  which 

^  "Anger,"  says  Fuller  {Holy  State,  iii.  8),  "is  one  of  the  binews 
of  the  soul ;  he  that  wants  it  hath  a  maimed  mind,  and  with  Jacob 
sinew-shrunk  in  the  hollow  of  his  thigh,  must  needs  halt.  Nor  is 
it  good  to  converse  with  such  as  cannot  be  angry." 


182  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

miogled  with  it,  that  only  which  ought  to  remain, 
may  remain. 


§  xxxviii. — eXaiov,  fivpov  (xp^^:  a\€i(j)co). 

It  has  been  sometimes  denied  that  in  the  Old 
Testament  there  is  any  distinction  between  these 
words ;  and  that  on  the  very  insufficient  grounds 
that  the  Septuagint  renders  Ta^iJ  sometimes  by  /mvpov 
(Prov.  xxvii.  9  ;  Cant.  i.  3 ;  Isa.  xxxix.  2 ;  Am.  vi.  6) ; 
though  much  more  frequently,  indeed  times  out  of 
number,  by  eXacov.  But  how  often  in  a  single  word 
of  one  language  are  latent  two  words  of  another ; 
especially,  when  that  other  abounds,  as  does  the 
Greek  compared  with  the  Hebrew,  in  finer  distinc- 
tions, in  a  more  subtle  notation  of  meanings ;  for 
example,  irapocfzia  and  irapa^okr)  in  the  Hebrew 
b^^,  and  this  duplicity  of  meaning  it  is  the  part  of 
a  well-skilled  translator  to  evoke.  JSTay  the  thing 
itself,  the  fivpov  (=  '  unguentum ')  so  naturally  grew 
out  of  the  ekaiov  (=  '  oleum ' ),  having  oil  for  its 
base,  with  only  the  superaddition  of  spice  or  scent 
or  other  aromatic  ingredients, —  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria {Pcedag.  ii.  8)  calls  it  "adulterated  oil"  (8e8o- 
Xwjievov  eXaiov^), —  that  it  would  be  long  in  any 

'  Compare  wliat  Plutarch  sajs  of  Lycurgus  {Apoth.  Lac.  18): 
r}>  fxev  fxvpov  i^e\a(rev,  cos  rov  iXaiov  (pOopav  koX  oAedpov. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  183 

language  before  the  necessity  of  differencing  words 
would  be  felt.  Thus  in  the  Greek  itself  fivpov  is 
not  found  earlier  than  Archilochus,  who  was  the 
first  to  emj^loy  it  (Athenseus,  xv.  37).  Doubtless 
there  were  ointments  in  Homer's  time ;  he  is  satis- 
fied however  with  '  sweet-smelling  oil,'  '  roseate  oil ' 
(euwSe?  eXai.ov,  Od.  ii.  339  ;  poSoev  eXacov,  II.  xxiii. 
186),  wherewith  to  express  them. 

But  that  in  later  times  there  was  a  clear  distinc- 
tion between  the  two,  and  a  distinction  which  ut- 
tered itself  in  language,  is  abundantly  evident.  I 
would  only  refer  in  proof  to  a  passage  in  Xenophon 
{Conv.  ii.  3,  4),  which  turns  altogether  on  the  greater 
suitableness  of  eXacov  for  men ;  and  f^vpov  for  wo- 
men ;  these  last  consequently  being  better  pleased 
that  the  men  should  savour  of  the  manly  oil  than 
of  the  effeminate  ointment  {iXaiov  Be  rod  iv  jvpiva- 
aLOL'^  ocTfjir)  KOL  Trapovcra  rjSlcov  rj  fivpov  yvvai^\  koI 
airovaa  TToOeivorepa).  And  in  like  manner  our 
Lord's  rebuke  to  the  discourteous  Pharisee,  "  My 
head  with  oil  thou  didst  not  anoint,  but  this  woman 
hath  anointed  my  feet  with  ointment "  (Luke  vii. 
46),  would  lose  all  or  nearly  all  its  point  on  any 
other  supposition:  "Thou  withheldest  from  me," 
He  would  say,  "  cheap  and  ordinary  civilities ;  while 
she  bestowed  upon  me  costly  and  rare  homages  ; " 
where  Grotius  remarks  well :  Est  enim  perpetua 
avTiGToiyia.    Mulier  ilia  lacrimas  impendit  pedibus 


184  synony:ms  of  the 

Christi  proluenclis  :  Simon  ne  aquam  quidem.  Ilia 
assidna  est  in  pedibiis  Cliristi  osculandis :  Simon 
ne  nno  quidem  oris  osculo  Cliristum  accepit.  Ilia 
pretioso  unguento  non  caput  tantum  sed  et  pedes 
perfundit :  ille  ne  caput  quidem  mero  oleo  :  quod 
pei'functorise  amicitia3  fuerat. 


Some  have  drawn  a  distinction  between  tlie 
verbs  aXeLcpecv  and  xp/etz/,  which,  as  they  make  it 
dependent  on  this  between  /ivpov  and  eXaiov,  may 
deserve  to  be  mentioned  here.  The  akd(f>€LVy  they 
say,  is  commonly  the  luxurious,  or  at  any  rate,  the 
superfluous,  anointing  with  ointment,  %pfeiy  the 
sanitary  anointing  with  oil.  Thus  Casaubon  {ad 
Athenceum^  xv.  18) :  aXelcfyeaOai  dicebantur  potissi- 
mum  homines  voluptatibus  dediti^  qui  pretiosis 
iinguentis  caput  et  manus  illinebant ;  '^^pUaOai  de 
hominibus  ponebatur  oleo  corpus,  sanitatis  caussd, 
inunguentibus.  'No  traces  of  the  observation  of 
any  such  distinction  appear  in  the  I^ew  Testament ; 
thus  compare  Mark  vi.  13 ;  Jam.  v.  4,  with  Mark 
xvi.  1  ;  John  xi.  2. 

A  distinction  between  the  words  is  maintained 
there,  but  it  is  wholly  difl^erent  from  this  ;  namely, 
that  a\€i(f>ecv  is  the  common  and  mundane,  xp/eti^ 
the  sacred  and  heavenly,  word :  aXei^eiv  is  used  in- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  185 

discriminately  of  all  actual  anointings,  wlietlier  with 
oil  or  ointment ;  while  %/3/eiz/,  no  doubt  in  its  con- 
nexion with  ^/9^<jt69,  is  absolutely  restricted  to  the 
anointing  of  the  Son,  by  the  Father,  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  for  the  accomplishment  of  His  great  office, 
being  wholly  separated  from  all  secular  and  com- 
mon uses.  Thus,  see  Luke  iv.  18  ;  Acts  iv.  27  ;  x. 
38  ;  2  Cor.  i.  21 ;  Heb.  i.  9 ;  the  only  occasions  on 
which  %/3tW  occurs.  The  same  holds  good  in  the 
Septuagint,  where  XptV^?,  y^plafjia  (cf.  1  John  ii.  20, 
27),  and  y^pieiv,  are  the  constant  and  ever  recurring 
words  in  respect  of  all  religious  and  symbolical 
anointings  ;  aXei^eiv  hardly  occurring  in  this  sense, 
not  oftener,  I  believe,  than  at  Exod.  xl.  13,  and 
Numb.  iii.  3. 


§  xxxix. — *El3paL0<;,  'JouSato?,  ^Icrpai]\LTr]<;, 

All  these  titles  are  used  to  designate  members 
of  the  elect  family,  the  chosen  race  ;  yet  they  are 
very  capable,  as  they  are  very  well  worthy,  of  be- 
ing discriminated. 

And  first,  'E/3pam  —  a  name  which  dates  back 
from  a  period  before  one,  and  very  long  before  the 
other,  of  those  brought  into  comparison  with  it, 
were,  or  could  have  been,  in  existence  (Josephus, 


186  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

Antt.  i.  6.  4).  It  is  best  deriYed  from  ^ns?,  the  same 
word  as  virep^  'super;' — in  this  title  allusion  being 
contained  to  Abraham's  immigration  into  the  land 
from  the  other  side  of  Euphrates ;  who  was,  there- 
fore, in  the  language  of  the  Phoenician  tribes  among 
whom  he  came,  "  Abram  the  Hebrew^'  or  o  Tre/jar?;?, 
as  it  is  well  given  in  the  Septuagint,  Gen.  xiv.  13, 
being  from  heyond  {irepav)  the  river.  Thus  Origen, 
In  3£att.  tom.  xi.  5  :  'E^patoL,  o7tlv€<;  ip/jLTjvevovrac 
TrepaTL/coL.  The  name  is  not  one  by  wdiich  the  chosen 
people  know  themselves,  but  by  wdiich  others  know 
them ;  not  one  which  they  have  taken,  but  which 
others  have  imposed  on  them ;  and  we  find  the 
word's  use  through  all  the  Old  Testament  entirely 
consistent  with  this  explanation  of  its  rise.  In 
every  case  'E^palo^  is  either  a  title  by  which  for- 
eigners designate  the  people  of  God  (Gen.  xxxix. 
14,  17 ;  xli.  12  ;  Exod.  i.  16, 19  ;  1  Sam.  iv.  6  ;  xiii. 
19;  xxix.  3;  Judith  xii.  11);  or  by  which  they 
designate  themselves  to  foreigners  (Gen.  xl.  15 ; 
Exod.  ii.  7 ;  iii.  18 ;  v.  3 ;  ix.  1 ;  Jon.  i.  19)  ;  or  by 
which  they  sj)eak  of  themselves  in  tacit  opposi- 
tion to  other  nations  (Gen.  xliii.  32 ;  Deut.  xv.  12  ; 
1  Sam.  xiii.  3  ;  Jer.  xxxriv.  9,  14) ;  never,  that  is,  be- 
ing used  without  such  an  antagonism,  either  latent 
or  expressed. 

When,  however,  the  name  'lovham  arose,  as  it 
did  in  the  later  periods  of  Jewish  history  (the  pre- 


NEW    TESTA]\IENT.  187 

cise  time  will  be  presently  considered),  'E^palo<s 
was  no  longer  used  exactly  as  hitherto  it  had  been. 
ISTothing  is  more  frequent  with  words  than  to  retire 
into  narrower  limits,  occupying  a  part  only  of  that 
meaning  whereof  once  they  occupied  the  whole ; 
when,  through  the  coming  up  of  some  new  term, 
they  are  no  longer  needed  in  all  their  former  ex- 
tent ;  and  at  the  same  time,  through  the  unfolding 
of  some  new  relation,  it  is  no  longer  desirable  that 
they  should  retain  it.  It  was  exactly  thus  with 
'E/Spalo^.  According  to  the  usage  of  the  word  in 
the  Xew  Testament,  the  point  of  view  external  to 
the  nation,  which  it  once  always  imjDlied,  exists  no 
longer ;  neither  is  every  Jew  an  'E^palos  now ;  but 
only  those  who,  whether  dwelling  in  Palestine  or 
otherwise,  have  retained  the  sacred  Hebrew  tongue 
as  their  native  language ;  the  true  comj)lement  and 
antithesis  to  'jE/Spato?  being  'EXX7jviaT't]<;,  a  word 
first  occurring  in  the  'New  Testament,  and  used  to 
designate  the  Jew  who  has  unlearned  his  own  lan- 
guage, and  now  speaks  Greek,  and  reads  the  Scrip- 
tures in  the  Sej^tuagint  version. 

This  distinction  first  appears  at  Acts  vi.  1 ;  and  is 
probably  intended  in  the  two  other  passages,  though 
these  are  not  without  their  difficulties,  where  'E/Spal- 
09  occurs  (2  Cor.  xi.  22  ;  Phil.  iii.  15) ;  as  well  as  in 
the  superscription,  on  whosesoever  authority  it  rests, 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.     It  is  important  to 


188  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

keep  in  mind  that  in  language,  not  in  place  of  habi- 
tation, lay  the  point  of  difference  between  the  '  He- 
brew '  and  the  '  Hellenist.'  He  w^as  a  '  Hebrew,' 
wherever  domiciled,  who  retained  the  use  of  the 
language  of  his  fathers.  Thus  Paul,  though  settled 
in  Tarsus,  a  Greek  city  in  Asia  Minor,  can  affirm 
of  himself  that  he  was  a  '  Hebrew,'  and  of  '  He- 
brew' parents  (Pliil.  iii.  15),  though  it  is  certainly 
possible  that  he  may  mean  by  these  assertions  no 
more  than  in  a  general  way  to  set  an  emphasis  on 
his  Judaism.  Doubtless  the  greater  number  of  the 
'  Hebrews '  in  this  sense  w^re  resident  in  Palestine ; 
yet  still  it  was  not  this  fact,  but  their  language 
which  constituted  them  such. 

At  the  same  time  it  will  be  good  to  keep  in  mind, 
that  this  distinction  and  opposition  of  'Efipaio<;  to 
'EXkr}ViaTi)'^^  as  a  distinction  within  the  nation,  and 
not  of  that  nation  with  other  nations,  wdiich  is  clear 
at  Acts  vi.  1,  and  probably  is  intended  at  Phil.  iii. 
15  ;  2  Cor,  xi.  22,  is  hardly,  if  at  all,  recognized  by 
later  Christian  writers,  not  at  all  by  Jewish  and 
heathen.  With  them  'E/3paLo<i  is  simply  equivalent 
to  'IovSaLo<; :  thus  see  Plutarch,  Syinjp.  iv.  6 ;  Pau- 
sanias,  v.  7.  3 ;  x.  12.  5 ;  while  Eusebius,  speaking 
of  Philo,  an  Alexandrian  Jew,  who  had  been  but 
once  in  his  life  at  Jerusalem,  and  who  wrote  exclu- 
sively in  Greek,  expresses  himself  in  this  language 
{Ilist.  Eccl.  ii.  4) :  to  [xev  ovv  yeVo?  aveKaOev  ^EjBpato^ 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  189 

rjv :  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  as  quoted  by  Euse- 
biiis  (vi.  14),  makes  continually  tlie  antithesis  to 
'EjBpaloL^  not  ' EX\.r]vc(TTaL,  but  "EWrjvef;  and  eOvrj. 
Tlieodoret  {Oj?p.  vol.  ii.  p.  124:6)  styles  tlie  Greek- 
writing  historian,  Josephus,  avyypacpev^  'Efipalo^  : 
cf.  Origen,  ^.  ad  Afric.  5.  As  little  in  Josephus 
himself,  or  in  Philo,  do  anj^  traces  exist  of  the  l^ew 
Testament  distinction  between  'EXKT^viarrjs  and 
'E^palos.  Only  this  much  of  it  is  recognised,  that 
'E^paLo<s,  though  otherwise  a  much  rarer  word  than 
^Iov8aLo<;,  is  always  employed  when  it  is  intended  to 
designate  the  people  on  the  side  of  their  language ; 
a  rule  v/liich  Jewish,  heathen,  and  Christian  writers 
alike  consent  to  observe,  and  which  still  survives  in 
the  fact,  that  we  sj^eak  to  the  present  day  of  the 
Jtwlsli  nation,  but  of  the  Hebrew  tongue. 

This  name  'lovSalog  is  of  much  later  origin.  It 
does  not  carry  us  back  to  the  very  cradle  of  the  na- 
tion, and  to  the  day  when  the  father  of  the  faithful 
passed  over  the  river,  and  entered  on  the  j)romised 
land  ;  but  keeps  rather  a  lasting  record  of  the  period 
of  national  disruption  and  decline.  It  arose,  and 
could  only  have  arisen,  witli  the  separation  of  the 
tribes.  Then,  inasmuch  as  the  ten  tribes,  though 
with  the  worst  right,  assumed  Israel  as  ^  title  to 
themselves,  the  two  drew  their  designation  from  the 
chiefest  of  them,  and  of  Judah  came  the  name 
^'^I^^O  5  or  'lovoaloi.     Josephus,  as  far  as  I  have  ob- 


190  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

served,  never  employs  it  in  telling  the  earlier  his- 
tory of  his  people.  The  first  occasion  of  its  use  by 
him  is;  I  believe,  at  A^itt.  x.  10. 1,  and  in  reference 
to  Daniel  and  his  young  companions.  Here,  how- 
ever, if  his  own  account  of  the  upcoming  of  the 
name  were  correct,  he  must  have  used  it  by  antici- 
pation—  his  statement  being  that  it  first  arose  after 
the  return  from  Babylon,  and  out  of  the  fact  that 
the  earliest  colony  of  those  who  returned  were  of 
that  tribe  {Antt.  xi.  5.  Y) :  eKXtjOrjaav  Be  to  ovofia 
ef  ^9  rj/juepa^  dve^rjcrav  ck  Bal3v\cbvo<;,  airo  rrj^  'lovSa 
^uA.?}?,  rj<;  7rpcoT7)<;  eXOovarj'^  et?  iKelvov^  tov^  tottov?, 
avTOL  re  kol  t)  x^P^  '^V'^  7rpoa7]yopia<;  aur^  /JLereXa- 
l3ov.  But  in  this  he  is  clearly  in  error.  We  meet 
'lovSaloL  in  books  anterior  to  the  Captivity,  used  in 
them  as  a  designation  of  those  who  pertained  to  the 
smaller  section  of  the  tribes,  the  kingdom  of  Judah 
(2  Kin.  xvi.  6 ;  Jer.  xxxii.  12  ;  xxxiv.  9  ;  xxxviii. 
19) ;  and  not  first  in  Ezra,  ]S"ehemiah,  and  Esther  ; 
however  in  these,  and  especially  in  the  last,  it  may 
be  of  far  more  frequent  occurrence. 

It  is  not  hard  to  perceive  how  the  name  extend- 
ed to  the  whole  nation.  "When  the  ten  tribes  were 
carried  into  Assyria,  and  disappeared  from  the 
world's  stage,  that  smaller  section  which  remained 
henceforth  rej)resented  the  whole  nation  ;  and  thus 
it  was  only  natural  that  'lovBaco^  should  express,  as 
it  now  came  to  do,  not  one  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah 


NEW  testa:ment.  191 

as  distingiiislied  from  that  of  Israel,  but  any  member 
of  the  nation,  a  Jew  in  this  wider  sense,  as  opposed 
to  a  Gentile.  In  fact,  the  word  TouSato?  underwent 
a  process  exactly  the  reverse  of  that  which  'E/Spalo^ 
had  undergone.  For  'E^paco^,  belonging  first  to 
the  whole  nation,  came  afterwards  to  belong  only 
to  a  part ;  while  'lovSalo^,  designating  at  first  only 
the  member  of  a  part,  ended  by  designating  the 
whole.  It  now,  in  its  later,  like  'E/Spah^  in  its  ear- 
lier, stage  of  meaning,  was  a  title  with  which  the 
descendant  of  Abraham  designated  himself,  when 
he  would  bring  out  the  national  distinction  between 
himself  and  other  people  (Eom.  ii.  9,  10) ;  thus 
'  Jew  and  Gentile  ; '  never  '  Israelite  and  Gentile  : ' 
or  which  others  used  about  him,  when  they  had  in 
view  this  same  fact ;  for  example,  the  Eastern  Wise 
Men  inquire,  "  Where  is  He  that  is  born  King  of 
the  Jews  f "  (Matt.  ii.  2),  testifying  by  the  form  of 
this  question,  that  they  were  themselves  Gentiles, 
for  they  would  certainly  have  asked  for  the  King 
of  Israel^  could  they  have  claimed  any  nearer  part 
or  share  in  Him ;  as,  again,  the  Koman  soldiers  and 
the  Roman  governor  give  to  Jesus  the  mocking  title, 
"King  of  the  Jews''  (Matt,  xxvii.  29,  37),  but  his 
own  countrymen,  the  high  priests,  challenge  Him 
to  prove  by  coming  down  from  the  cross  that  He  is 
"lOng  of  IsraeV  (Matt,  xxvii.  42). 

For  indeed  the  absolute  name,  that  which  ex- 


19:^  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

pressed  the  whole  dignity  and  glory  of  a  member 
of  the  theocratic  nation,  of  the  j)eople  in  peculiar 
covenant  with  God,  was  'lapaTjXirT)^.  It  is  a  title 
of  unfrequent  occurrence  in  the  Septuagint,  but 
often  used  by  Josephus  in  his  earlier  history,  as 
convertible  with  'E(3palo<;  {Antt.  i.  9.  1,  2) ;  in  the 
middle  period  of  it  to  designate  a  member  of  the 
ten  tribes  (viii.  8.  3  ;  ix.  14. 1) ;  and  toward  the  end 
as  equivalent  to  'IouBa2o<;  (xi.  v.  4).  It  is  only  in  its 
relation  of  likeness  and  difference  to  this  last  that 
we  have  to  consider  it  here.  It  was  the  Jews'  badge 
and  title  of  honour.  To  be  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham, this  honour  they  must  share  with  Ishmaelite, 
and  Edomite  ;  but  none  except  themselves  were  the 
seed  of  Jacob,  such  as  in  this  name  of  Israelite  they 
were  declared  to  be :  nor  this  only,  but  more  hon- 
ourably still,  their  descent  was  herein  traced  up  to 
him,  not  as  he  was  Jacob,  but  as  he  was  Israel, 
wdio  as  a  Prince  had  had  power  with  God  and  with 
men,  and  had  prevailed  (Gen.  xxxii.  28).  That  this 
title  was  accounted  the  noblest,  we  have  ample 
proof.  Thus,  when  the  ten  tribes  threw  off  their 
allegiance  to  the  house  of  David,  they  claimed  in 
their  pride  and  j^i'etension  the  name  of  "  the  king- 
dom of  Israel "  for  the  new  kingdom  which  they 
set  up — the  kingdom,  as  the  name  was  intended  to 
imply,  in  which  the  line  of  the  promises,  the  true 
succession  of  the  early  patriarchs,  ran.     So,  too, 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  193 

there  is  no  nobler  title  with  which  our  Lord  can 
adorn  Kathanael  than  that  of  "  an  Israelite  indeed  " 
(John  i.  47),  one  in  whom  all  which  that  name  in- 
volv^ed,  might  be  indeed  found.  And  when  Peter, 
and  again  when  Paul,  would  obtain  a  hearing  from 
the  men  of  their  nation,  when  therefore  they  address 
them  with  the  name  most  welcome  to  their  ears,  it 
is  still  ai/Speg  'laparjXlraL  (Acts  ii.  22  ;  iii.  12  ;  xiii. 
16;  cf.  Ptom.  ix.  4;  PhiL  iii.  5;  2  Cor.  xii.  29); 
with  which  thej  seek  to  acquire  their  good-will. 

When,  then,  we  limit  ourselves  to  the  employ- 
ment in  the  INTew  Testament  of  these  three  words, 
we  may  say  that  'E^palo^  is  a  Hebrew-speaking, 
as  contrasted  with  Greek-speaking,  or  Hellenizing, 
Jew ;  what  in  our  Version  we  have  well  called  a 
'  Grecian,'  as  distinguished  iYom."EXKrjv^  a  veritable 
'  Greek '  or  other  Gentile  ;  'Iov8alo<;  is  a  Jew  in  his 
national  distinction  from  a  Gentile  ;  while  'laparjXt- 
T7]<i,  the  augustest  title  of  all,  is  a  Jew  as  he  is  a 
member  of  the  theocracy,  and  thus  an  heir  of  the 
promises.  In  the  first  is  predominantly  noted  his 
language,  in  the  second  his  nationality  (lovBa'Ca-fjLo^, 
Josephus,  J)e  Mace.  4 ;  Gal.  i.  13  ;  ^lovSat^eiv,  Gal. 
ii.  14),  in  the  third  his  religious  privileges,  and 
glorious  vocation. 


194:  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 


§  xl. — alTeo),  ipcoTao). 

These  words  are  often  rendered  by  tlie  authors 
of  onr  Yersion,  as  thongli  there  was  no  difference 
between  them ;  nor  can  any  fault  be  found  with 
their  rendering,  in  numerous  instances,  alrelv  and 
ipcordv  alike  by  our  English  '  to  ask.'  Still  it  must 
be  admitted  that  there  are  occasions  on  which  they 
have  a  little  marred  the  perspicuity  of  the  original 
by  not  varying  their  word,  where  the  original  has 
varied  its  own.  Thus  it  is,  for  example,  at  John 
xvi.  23,  where  the  obliteration  of  the  distinction 
between  alreLv  and  ipordv  suggests  very  often  a 
wrong  interpretation  of  the  verse, — as  though  its 
two  clauses  were  in  nearer  connexion,  and  more 
direct  antithesis,  than  in  fact  they  are, — being  in- 
deed in  none.  The  words  as  they  stand  in  our 
Version  are  as  follows:  "In  that  day  ye  shall  ask 
me  nothing  [e/^e  ovk  ipcDTrjo-ere  ovhev\.  Yerily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Whatsoever  ye  shall  ash 
[oaa  av  alrrjOTjTe]  the  Father  in  my  name,  He 
will  give  it  you."  Now  any  attentive  student  of 
the  original  will  acknowledge,  that  "ye  shall  ask" 
of  the  first  half  of  the  verse  has  nothing  to  do  with 
"  ye  shall  ask "  of  the  second ;  that  in  the  first 
Christ  is  referring  back  to  the  rjOeXov  avTov  ipwrdv 


NEW   TESTA^IENT.  195 

of  vei".  19  ;  to  the  questions  whicli  they  would  fain 
have  asked  Him,  but  did  not  venture :  "In  that 
day,"  He  would  say,  "  the  day  of  my  seeing  you 
again,  I  will  by  the  Spirit  so  teach  you  all  things, 
that  ye  shall  be  no  longer  perplexed,  no  longer 
wishing  to  ask  Me  questions,  which  yet  you  dare 
not  put."  Thus  Lampe  well :  INTova  est  promissio 
de  plenissima  cognitionis  luce,  qua  convenienter 
ceconomifB  'Noyi  Testamenti  collustrandi  essent. 
N^am  sicut  qu^stio  supponit  inscitiam,  ita  qui  nihil 
amplius  quserit  abunde  se  edoctum  existimat,  et  in 
doctrina  plene  exposita  ac  intellecta  acquiescit. 
There  is  not  in  the  verse  a  contrast  drawn  between 
asking  the  Son,  which  shall  cease,  and  asking  the 
Father,  which  shall  begin  ;  but  the  first  half  of  the 
verse  closes  the  declaration  of  one  blessing,  that 
they  shall  be  so  taught  by  the  Spirit  as  to  have 
nothing  further  to  inquire  ;  the  second  half  of  the 
verse  begins  the  declaration  of  altogether  a  new 
blessing,  that  whatever  they  ask  from  the  Father 
in  the  Son's  name.  He  will  give  it  them.  Yet  who 
will  afiirm  that  this  is  the  impression  which  the 
English  text  conveys  to  his  mind  ? 

The  distinction  between  the  words  is  this : 
alrico,  the  Latin  'peto,'  is  more  submissive  and 
suppliant,  indeed  the  constant  word  by  which  is 
expressed  the  seeking  of  the  inferior  from  the  supe- 
rior (Acts  xii.  20);   of  the  beggar  from  him  that 


196  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

slioiild  give  alms  (Acts  iii.  2) ;  of  the  child  from 
the  parent  (Matt.  vii.  9  ;  Lnke  xi.  11 ;  Lam.  iv.  4) ; 
of  the  subject  from  the  ruler  (Ezra  viii.  22) ;  of  man 
from  God  (1  Kin.  iii.  11 ;  Matt.  vii.  7  ;  Jam.  i.  5  ; 
1  John  iii.  22  ;  cf  Plato,  Euthyph.  14  :  ev'^eaQai 
\eaTLv\  alrelv  tov9  Oeoix;).  'EpcoTao),  on  the  other 
hand,  is  the  Latin  '  rogo ; '  or  sometimes  (as  John 
xvi.  23 ;  cf  Gen.  xliv.  19)  '  interrogo,'  which  in- 
deed is  the  only  meaning  that  in  classical  Greek  it 
has ;  never  there  meaning  '  to  ask,'  but  only  '  to  in- 
terrogate,' or  '  to  inquire.'  Like  the  Latin  '  rogo,' ' 
it  implies  on  the  part  of  the  asker  a  certain  equal- 
ity, as  of  king  with  king  (Luke  xiv.  32),  or,  if  not 
equality,  familiarity  with  him  from  whom  the  gift 
or  favour  is  sought,  which  lends  authority  to  the 
request. 

Thus  it  is  very  noticeable,  and  witnesses  for  the 
remarkable  accuracy  in  the  employment  of  words, 
and  in  the  record  of  that  employment,  which  pre- 
vails throughout  the  New  Testament,^  that  our  Lord 
never  uses  alrelv  or  alrelaOaL  of  Himself,  in  resjpect 
of  that  which  He  seeks  from  God  ;  his  is  not  the 
petition  of  the  creature  to  the  Creator,  but  the  re- 
quest of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  The  consciousness 
of  his  equal  dignity  speaks  out  in  this,  that  often  as 

1  Thus  Cicero  {Plane,  x.  25) :    N"eque  eniin  ego  sic  rogahmn,  ut 
pefere  viderer,  quia  fawiliaris  esset  meus. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  197 

He  asks,  or  declares  that  He  will  ask,  anything  of 
the  Father,  it  is  always  ipcoTco,  ipcorrjcrco,  an  asking. 
that  is,  as  upon  equal  terms  (John  xiv.  16  ;  xvi.  26 ; 
xvii.  9,  15,  20),  never  alrco  or  alrrjaw.  Martha,  on 
the  contrary,  plainly  reveals  her  poor  unworthy 
notions  of  his  person,  and  in  fact  declares  that  she 
sees  in  Him  no  more  than  a  prophet,  ascribing  the 
alrelaOaL  to  Him,  which  He  never  ascribes  to  Him- 
self: oaa  av  alT7]crrj  rov  Qeov,  Bcoaec  aoi  6  ©eo? 
(John  xi.  22):  on  which  verse  Bengel  has  these 
observations  :  Jesus,  de  se  rogante  loquens  ihei]67)v 
dicit  (Luc.  xxii.  32),  et  ipwnjcrco,  et  nunquam  alrov- 
fiat.  Kon  Greece  locuta  est  Martha,  sed  tamen 
Johannes  exprimit  improprium  ejus  sermonem, 
quern  Dominus  benigne  tulit :  nam  alrelaOai  vide- 
tur  verbum  esse  minus  dignum ;  c£  his  note  on 
1  John  V.  16. 

It  will  follow  from  what  has  been  said  that  the 
ipwrdv,  being  thus  proper  for  Christ,  inasmuch  as 
it  has  authority  in  it,  is  not  proper  for  us  ;  and  in 
no  single  instance  is  it  used  in  the  Xew  Testament 
to  express  the  prayer  of  man  to  God,  of  the  creature 
to  the  Creator.  The  only  passage  where  it  might 
seem  to  be  so  used,  which  therefore  might  be  ad- 
duced as  contradicting  this  assertion,  is  1  John  v. 
16  ;  which  yet  constitutes  no  true  exception  to  the 
rule,  but  rather  in  its  change  from  alrrjaeL  of  the 
earlier  clause  of  the  verse,  a  strong  confirmation  of 


198  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

it.  "If  any  man  see  his  brother  sin  a  sin  which  is 
not  unto  death,  he  shall  ash  [atr?;cret],  and  He 
shall  give  him  life  for  them  that  sin  not  unto  death. 
There  is  a  sin  unto  death.  I  do  not  say  that  he 
shall  ^T ay  [tW  e^(xiTr]orri\  for  it;"  the  Christian 
intercessor  for  his  brethren,  St.  Jolm  declares,  shall 
not  assume  the  authority  which  w^ould  be  implied 
in  making  request  for  a  sinner  who  had  sinned  the 
sin  unto  death  (cf.  Mark  iii.  29  ;  1  Sam.  xv.  35  ; 
xvi.  1),  wdiatever  this  may  be,  that  it  might  be  for- 
given to  him. 


§  xli. — avaiTav(ii<^^  dve<jL<;. 

Our  Version  renders  both  these  words  by  ^  rest ; ' 
dvd7ravarL<;  at  Matt.  xi.  28  ;  xii.  45  ;  and  aveac^  at 
2  Cor.  ii.  13  ;  vii.  5  ;  2  Thess.  i.  7.  ISTo  one  can 
object  to  this;  while  yet  on  examination  we  at 
once  perceive  that  the  words  repose  on  different 
images,  and  contemplate  this  '  rest '  from  different 
points  of  vicAV.  ^Avdiravai<;  (from  dvairavcii)  implies 
the  pause  or  cessation  from  labour ;  it  is  the  con- 
stant word  in  the  Septuagint  for  the  rest  of  the  Sab- 
bath ;  thus  Exod,  xvi.  23 ;  xxxi.  15  ;  xxxv.  2,  and 
often :  dveai^  (from  dvirjijn)  implies  the  relaxing  or 
letting  down  of  chords  or  strings  which  have  before 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  199 

been  strained  or  drawn  tight,  the  exact  and  literal 
antithesis  to  it  being  i7rLTaari,<;  (from  iirtTelvco) :  thus 
Plato  {JPol.  i.  349  e) :  ev  rfj  iTrcrdaei,  koI  aveaei  rcov 
XopSwv :  and  Plutarch  {De  Lib.  Ed.  18) :  tcl  ro^a 
fcal  ra?  \vpa<;  avlefxev,  Xva  lirLTelvai  hvv7)6wixev  :  and 
again  (Lye.  29) :  ovic  aveat^  rjv,  aXX  eiriTaai';  r?;? 
iToXneia^.  Other  quotations  illustrative  of  the 
word  are  the  following  ;  this  from  Josephus  {A71U. 
iii.  12.  3),  where  he  says  of  JMoses  that  in  the  jubi- 
lee year  he  gave  aveaiv  rfj  *yy  airo  re  aporpov  koI 
(fiVTela^  :  but  the  most  instructive  of  all  is  in  Plu- 
tarch's treatise,  De  Lib.  Ed.  13 :  horeov  ovv  rol^ 
iraiolv  dvaTTvorjv  t(ov  avve')(€)V  ttovoov^  iv9v/jLovfM6vov<?j 

OTL    ITOL'^    6    pLO^    rjflMV    66?    dvecTLv    KOl    (TTTOvhrjV     hifiprj- 

rai'  KOl  Std  rovTO  ov  fiovov  iyp7]<yopaL<^,  aXXd  koI 
v7rvo<;  evpeOij'  ovSe  iroXefio^;^  dXkd  /cal  elprjvr]'  ovSe 
■)/€(/i(jL>v,  dWd  KOL  evBla '  ovSe  ivepyol  irpd^ei^;^  dXkd 
Kal  eopral.  ....  KaOoXov  he  aco^erat^  aco/jia  fiev, 
ii'Seia  kol  TrXrjpcoaec  •  yjrvxv  he,  dveaet  koI  ttovg). 
The  opposition  between  dveac<;  and  cTrovhrj  which 
occurs  in  this  quotation,  is  found  also  in  Plato 
{Legg.  iv.  724  a) ;  while  elsewhere  in  Plutarch 
{Symp.  V.  6),  dveav^  is  set  over  against  aT€vo')(^copia, 
as  a  dwelling  at  large,  instead  of  in  a  narrow  and 
strait  room. 

When  thus  we  present  to  ourselves  the  precise 
significance  of  dv€ai,<;,  we  cannot  fail  to  note  how 
excellently  chosen  the  word  is  at  Acts  xxiv.  23  ; 


200  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

where  e')(^6Lv  re  dveaiv,  we  translate,  "and  let  him 
have  liberty.''''  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  better 
word,  yet  ^liberty'  does  not  exactly  express  St. 
Luke's  intention :  Felix,  taking  now  a  more  favour- 
able view  of  Paul's  case,  commands  the  centurion 
who  had  him  in  charge,  as  the  context  abundantly 
shows,  to  relax  for  the  future  the  strictness  of  his 
imprisonment,  and  it  is  this  exactly  which  aveai^ 
implies. 

The  distinction,  then,  between  it  and  avdiravai^ 
is  obvious.  When  our  Lord  promises  dvuTravat^  to 
as  many  as  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  if  only 
they  will  come  to  Him  (Matt.  xi.  28,  29),  the  prom- 
ise is,  that  they  shall  cease  from  their  toils ;  that 
they  shall  no  longer  weary  themselves  for  very 
vanity  ;  when  his  Apostle  expresses  his  confidence 
that  the  Thessalonians,  troubled  now,  should  yet 
find  dveaL?  in  the  day  of  Christ  (2  Thess.  i.  7),  that 
which  he  anticipates  for  them  is  not  so  much  rest 
from  labour,  as  a  relaxing  of  the  strings  of  endur- 
ance, now  so  tightly  drawn,  and,  as  it  were,  strained 
to  the  uttermost.  It  is  true  that  this  promise  and 
that  are  not  at  their  centre  two,  but  one ;  yet  for 
all  this  they  present  the  blessedness  which  Christ 
will  impart  to  his  own  under  diiferent  aspects,  and 
by  help  of  difierent  images  ;  and  each  word  has 
its  own  peculiar  fitness  in  the  place  where  it  is 
employed. 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  201 


§  xlii. — Ta7r€Lvo(f>poavv7].  irpaoTT}'^. 

The  very  work  for  wliich  Christ's  Gospel  came 
into  the  world  was  no  other  than  to  cast  down  the 
mighty  from  their  seat,  and  to  exalt  the  hnmble  and 
meek ;  it  was  then  only  in  accordance  with  this  its 
task  and  mission  that  it  should  dethrone  the  hea- 
then virtue  /xeyaXoyjrvxla,  and  set  up  the  despised 
raTrecvocppoo-vvr]  in  its  room,  stripping  that  of  the 
honour  which  hitherto  it  had  unjustly  assumed,  de- 
livering this  from  the  dishonour  which  as  unjustly 
had  hitherto  been  its  portion.  Indeed  the  very 
word  Ta7r€Lvocf)poavv7j  is,  I  believe,  itself  a  birth  of 
the  Gospel ;  I  am  not  aware  of  any  Greek  writer 
who  employed  it  before  the  Christian  sera,  or,  apart 
from  the  influence  of  Christian  writings,  after.  Plu- 
tarch has  got  as  far  as  ra'Treiv6<l)p(ov  {De  Alex,  Yirt. 
ii.  4),  which  however  he  employs  in  an  ill  sense  ; 
and  the  use  which  heathen  writers  make  of  raireivo^;^ 
raTreivoTT]^,  and  other  words  of  this  family,  shows 
plainly  in  what  sense  they  would  have  employed 
ra7reLvo(f>po(Tvvr/,  had  they  thought  it  good  to  allow 
the  word.  For  indeed  the  instances  in  which  ra- 
TTecvo^  is  used  in  any  other  than  an  evil  sense,  and 
to  signify  aught  else  than  that  which  is  low,  slavish, 
and  mean-spirited,  are  few  and  altogetlier  excep- 


202  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

tional.  Thus  it  is  joined  with  av€\ev6epo<i  (Plato, 
Legg.  iv.  744  c) ;  with  ayevvrj^  (Lucian,  De  Calmn. 
24) ;  with  BovXl/co^;,  and  with  other  words  of  this 
stamjD. 

Still  these  exceptional  cases  are  more  numerous 
than  some  will  allow.  Such  may  be  found  in  Plato, 
J^egg.  iv.  716  a,  where  ra7r€cv6<i  is  linked  with  K€Koa- 
/irj/jbivo^,  as  in  Demosthenes  we  have  Xoyot  fiirpcoL 
Kol  raTreivoL :  and  see  for  its  worthier  use  a  very 
grand  passage  in  Plutarch,  De  Prof,  in  Virt.  10. 
Combined  with  these  prophetic  intimations  of  the 
honour  which  should  one  day  be  rendered  even  to 
the  very  words  which  have  to  do  with  humility,  it 
is  very  interesting  to  note  that  Aristotle  himself  has 
a  vindication,  and  it  only  needs  to  receive  its  due 
extension  to  be  a  complete  one,  of  the  Christian 
Ta'jTeivo<f)poa-vv7j  {Ethio.  Ni<i.  iv.  3).  Having  con- 
fessed how  hard  it  is  for  a  man  t^  akrjOeia  /jieyaXo- 
'yjrv'^ov  elvai  —  for  he  will  allow  no  /leyaXo-^vxici 
which  does  not  rest  on  corresponding  realities  of 
goodness,  and  his  /neyaXoylrvxo^i  is  one  /xeyaXcov  avrov 
a^icbv,  a^Lo^  wv  —  he  goes  on  to  observe,  though 
merely  by  the  way  and  little  conscious  how  far  his 
words  reached,  that  to  think  humbly  of  oneself, 
where  that  humhle  estimate  is  the  true  one^  cannot 
be  imputed  to  any  as  a  culjjable  littleness  of  spirit ; 
it  is  rather  the  true  acocppoavvrj  (o  yap  jXLKpcav  a^Lo<^, 
Kol  Tovrcov  d^Lcov  kavTov,  acocjipwv).    But  if  this  be  so 


KEW    TESTAMENT.  208 

(and  who  will  deny  it  ? )  then,  seeing  that  for  every 
man  the  limnhle  estimate  of  himself  is  the  true  one, 
he  has  herein  unconsciously  vindicated  the  raTreivo- 
cf)po(ruv7]  as  a  grace  which  should  be  every  man's  ; 
for  that  which  Aristotle,  even  by  the  light  of  ethi- 
cal philosophy,  confessed  to  be  a  'yoKeirov^  namely 
TTi  aS/qOeia  fjieyoKoy^v^ov  elvai^  the  Christian,  con- 
vinced by  the  Spirit  of  God,  knows  to  be  an  ahvva- 
70V.  Such  is  the  Christian  raTretvocfipoavvTj,  no  self- 
made  grace,  and  Chrysostom  is  in  fact  bringing  in 
pride  again  under  the  disguise  of  humility,  when 
he  characterises  it  as  a  making  of  ourselves  small, 
when  we  are  great  {raireivo^poavvr)  rovro  iartv,  orav 
Tci  fjL6ja<i  Mv,  eavTov  TaireivoZ'.  and  he  rejDeats  this 
often ;  see  Suicer,  Thes.  s.  v.) ;  it  is  rather  the  es- 
teeming of  ourselves  small,  inasmuch  as  we  are  so ; 
the  thinking  truly,  and  because  truly,  therefore 
lowlily,  of  ourselves. 

But  it  may  be  objected,  if  this  be  the  Christian 
TaTreivocj^poavvi],  if  it  springs  out  of  and  rests  on  the 
sense  and  the  confession  of  sin,  how  does  this  agree 
with  the  fact  that  our  Lord  could  lay  claim  to  this 
grace  and  say,  "  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart " 
{Ta7r€Lvb<;  Trj  /capBia,  Matt.  xi.  29)  ?  The  answer  is, 
that  for  the  sinner  raireivoippoo-vvr)  involves  the 
confession  of  sin,  for  it  involves  the  confession  of 
his  true  condition ;  while  yet  for  the  unfallen  crea- 
ture the  grace  itself  as  truly  exists,  involving  for 


204  SYNO^^YMS    OF   THE 

sucli  the  acknowledgment  not  of  sinfulness,  wliicli 
would  be  untrue,  but  of  creatureliness,  of  absolute 
dependence,  of  having  nothing,  but  receiving  all 
things  of  God.  Thus  this  grace  belongs  to  the  high- 
est angel  before  the  throne,  being  as  he  is  a  crea- 
ture, jea  even  to  the  Lord,  of  Glory  Himself.  In 
his  human  nature  He  must  be  the  pattern  of  all 
humility,  of  all  creaturely  dependence;  nor  is  it 
otherwise  than  as  a  man  that  Christ  thus  claims  to 
be  ra7T€iv6<^ ;  for  it  will  be  observed  that  He  does 
not  affirm  Himself  Ta7ret2yo9  to3  irvevfjcari  (contrite 
sinners  are  such,  Ps.  xxiii.  19),  any  more  than  He 
could  speak  of  Himself  as  tttw^^o?  tS  TrvevfiaTc,  his 
TTvev/jba  being  divine;  but  He  is  raireLvo^  ry  Kap- 
Sla:  his  earthly  life  was  a  constant  living  on  the 
fulness  of  His  Father's  love ;  He  continually  took 
the  place  which  beseems  the  creature  in  the  pres- 
ence of  its  Creator. 

Let  us  seek  now  to  put  this  word  in  its  relation 
with  iTpaoTT]^.  The  Gospel  of  Christ  did.  not  to  so 
great  an  extent  rehabilitate  Trpaorr}^  as  it  had  done 
Ta7reLvo(f)poavv7j,  and  this,  because  the  word  did  not 
need  rehabilitation  in  the  same  degi'ee.  ITpaor?;? 
did  not  require  to  be  turned  from  a- bad  sense  to  a 
good,  but  only  to  be  lifted  up  from  a  lower  good  to 
a  higher.  This  indeed  it  did  need ;  for  no  one 
can  read  Aristotle's  account  of  the  Trpdo^;  and  of 
irpaoTQ]^  {Ethic.  Nic.  iv.  5),  mentally  comparing  this 


NEW   TESTA^IENT.  205 

with  the  meaning  which  we  attach  to  the  words, 
and  not  feel  that  revelation  has  given  to  them  a 
depth,  a  richness,  a  fulness  of  significance  which 
they  were  very  far  from  possessing  before.  The 
great  moralist  of  Greece  set  the  irpaoTTj^  as  the  mid- 
dle virtue  between  the  opyiXoTTj^  and  the  aopyrjala, 
with  however  so  much  leaning  to  this  last  that  it 
might  very  easily  run  into  this  defect ;  and  he  finds 
the  irpaorr)';  worthy  of  praise,  more  because  by  it  a 
man  retains  his  own  equanimity  and  composure 
(the  word  is  associated  by  Plutarch,  De  Frat.  Am. 
18,  with  fierptoirdOeLa)^  than  from  any  nobler  reason. 
Keither  does  Plutarch's  own  pretty  little  essay,  Ilepl 
dopyi]aLa<;,  rise  anywhere  to  a  higher  pitch  than  this, 
though  we  might  perhajDS  have  expected  something 
higher  from  him.  The  word  is  opposed  by  Plato 
to  djpLOTT)'^  {Symjp.  197  ^) ;  by  Aristotle  to  %aXe7ro- 
tt;?  {Hist.  Anhn.  ix.  1) ;  by  Plutarch  to  diroro/xia 
{J)e  Lib.  Ed.  18) ;  all  indications  of  a  somewhat  su- 
perficial view  of  its  meaning. 

Those  Christian  expositors  who  will  not  allow 
for  the  new  forces  at  work  in  sacred  Greek,  who 
would  fain  limit,  for  instance,  the  vrpao?  of  the  InTcw 
Testament  to  such  a  sense  as  the  word,  when  em- 
ployed by  the  best  classical  writers,  would  have 
borne,  will  deprive  themselves  and  those  who  accept 
their  interpretation  of  very  much  of  the  deeper 
meaning  in  Scripture  ;  on  which  subject,  and  with 


206  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

reference  to  this  very  word,  see  some  excellent  ob- 
servations by  F.  Spanlieim,  Dubia  Evangelica^  vol. 
iii.  p.  39S.  The  Scrij^tnral  TrpaoTq^  is  not  in  a  man's 
outward  behaviour  only ;  nor  3'et  in  his  relations  to 
his  fellow-men  ;  as  little  in  his  mere  natural  dispo- 
sition. Rather  is  it  an  inwrought  grace  of  the  soul ; 
and  the  exercises  of  it  are  first  and  chiefly  towards 
God  (Matt.  xi.  29 ;  Jam.  i.  21).  It  expresses  that 
temper  of  spirit  in  which  we  accept  his  dealings 
with  us  without  disputing  and  resisting ;  and  it  is 
closely  linked  with  the  raTreLvo^poavvrf,  and  follows 
close  upon  it  (Eph.  iv.  2  ;  Col.  iii.  12),  because  it  is 
only  the  humble  heart  which  is  also  the  meek ;  and 
which,  as  such,  does  not  fight  against  God,  and 
more  or  less  struggle  and  contend  with  Him. 

This  meekness  however,  which  is  first  a  meek- 
ness in  respect  of  God,  is  also  such  in  the  face  of 
men,  even  of  evil  men,  out  of  the  thought  that  these, 
with  the  insults  and  injm-ies  which  they  may  inflict, 
a,re  permitted  and  used  by  Him  for  the  chastening 
and  purifying  of  his  peoj^le.  This  was  the  root  of 
David's  TrpaoTT;?,  when  on  occasion  of  his  flight 
from  Absalom  Shimei  cursed  and  fluna:  stones  afc 
him  —  the  thought,  namely,  that  the  Lord  had  bid- 
den him  (2  Sam.  xvi.  11),  that  it  was  just  for  him  to 
suffer  these  things,  however  unjust  it  might  be  for 
the  other  to  inflict  them ;  and  out  of  like  convic- 
tions all  true  Christian  Trpaor???  must  spring.     He 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  207 

that  is  meek  indeed  will  know  himself  a  sinner 
among  sinners ;  or,  if  in  one  case  He  conld  not  know 
Himself  such,  jet  bearing  a  sinner's  doom ;  and 
this  will  teach  him  to  endure  meekly  the  provoca- 
tions with  which  they  may  provoke  him,  not  to 
withdraw  himself  from  the  burdens  which  their  sin 
may  impose  upon  him  (Gal.  vi.  1 ;  2  Tim.  ii.  25  ; 
Tit.  iii.  2). 

The  TTpaoTT]^  then,  if  it  is  to  be  more  than  mere 
gentleness  of  manner,  if  it  is  to  be  the  Christian 
grace  of  meekness  of  spirit,  must  rest  on  deeper 
foundations  than  its  own,  on  those  namely  which 
the  Taireivocjipoavv'q  has  laid  for  it,  and  it  can  only 
continue,  while  it  continues  to  rest  on  these.  It  is 
a  grace  in  advance  of  raireLvotppoavvr}^  not  as  being 
more  precious  than  it,  but  as  presujDposing,  and  as 
unable  to  exist  without  it. 


xliii.- 


rpaoT7]^j   e7n€L/c6La. 


Ta7r€Lvo(j)poavvrj  and  iTneUeLa  are  in  their  mean- 
ings too  far  apart  to  be  fit  objects  of  synonymous 
discrimination  ;  but  Trpaorrj^,  which  stands  between 
them,  holds  on  to  them  both.  Its  points  of  contact 
with  the  former  have  just  been  considered  ;  and  for 
this  purpose  its  own  exact  force  was  sought  to  be 


20 S  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

seized.  Without  going  over  this  ground  anew,  we 
may  now  consider  its  relation  to  the  latter.  Of 
67rL€iK€ia,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  mere 
existence  of  such  a  word  is  itself  a  signal  evidence  of 
the  high  development  of  ethics  among  the  Greeks.  ^ 
Derived  from  clkco,  eoiKa^  '  cedo,'  it  means  properly 
that  yieldingness  which  recognises  the  impossibility 
which  formal  law  will  be  in,  of  anticipating  and 
providing  for  all  those  cases  that  will  emerge  and 
present  themselves  to  it  for  their  decision ;  which, 
with  this,  recognises  the  danger  that  ever  waits 
upon  legal  rights,  lest  they  should  be  pushed  into 
moral  wrongs,  lest  the  '  summum  jus  '  should  prac- 
tically prove  the  'summa  injuria;'  which  therefore 
urges  not  its  own  rights  to  the  uttermost,  but  going 
back  in  part  or  in  the  whole  from  these,  rectifies 
and  redresses  the  injustices  of  justice.*^  It  is  in  this 
way  more  truly  just  than  strict  justice  would  have 
been  ;  SUatov  koI  ^eknov  tivo<;  BiKalov,  as  Aristotle 

^  No  Latiu  word  exactly  and  adequately  renders  it;  'dementia ' 
sets  forth  one  side  of  it,  '  sequitas '  another,  and  perhaps  'modestia ' 
(by  which  the  Vulgate  translates  it,  2  Cor.  x.  1)  a  third ;  but  the 
word  is  wanting  which  should  set  forth  all  these  excellences  re- 
conciled in  a  single  and  a  higher  one. 

'  This  aspect  of  iTrieUeia  must  never  be  lost  sight  of.  Seneca 
(Be  Clem.  ii.  7)  well  brings  it  out:  Kihil  ex  his  facit,  tanquam 
justo  minus  fecerit,  sed  tanquam  id  quod  constituit,  justissimum 
sit ;  and  Aquinas :  Diminutiva  est  pceuarum,  secundum  ration'^m 
rectam ;  quando  scilicet  oportet,  et  in  qiiibus  oportet. 


NEW  testa:ment.  209 

expresses  it  {Ethic.  Nic.  v.  10.  6) ;  being  indeed, 
again  to  use  his  words,  iiravopOco^a  vofiov^  fj  iWel- 
irei  hid  to  Ka66\ov :  ^  and  lie  sets  the  dfcpi/SoSLKaio^^, 
the  man  who  stands  up  for  the  utmost  tittle  of  his 
rights,  over  against  the  eVtet«:?J?.  Plato  defines  it 
{Def.  412  ^),  hiKaiwv  koI  o-vfKpepovTcov  eXdrrcoa-L^. 

The  archetype  and  pattern  of  this  grace  is  to 
be  found  in  God.  All  his  goings  back  from  the 
strictness  of  his  rights  as  against  men  ;  all  his 
allowing  of  their  imperfect  righteousness,  and  giv- 
ing of  a  value  to  that  which,  rigidly  estimated, 
would  have  none ;  all  his  refusing  to  exact  extreme 
penalties  (Wisd.  xii.  18 ;  2  Mace.  x.  4 ;  Ps.  Ixxxv. 
5 :  OTb  av^  Kvpc€j  ^/97;iTT09  fcal  e7neLKr]<;  kol  iroXve- 
Xeo?  :  cf  Plutarch,  Coriol.  24 ;  Pericles^  39  ;  Ccesar, 
5T) ;  all  his  remembering  whereof  we  are  made, 
and  measuring  his  dealing  with  us  thereby;  we 
may  contemplate  as  eTneUeia  upon  his  part ;  as  it 
demands  the  same,  one  toward  another,  upon  ours. 
The  greatly  forgiven  servant  in  the  parable  (Matt, 
xviii.  23)  had  known  the  eirieUeLa  of  his  lord  and 

^  Daniel,  a  considerable  poet,  but  a  far  greater  thinker,  has  in 
a  poem  addressed  to  Lord  Chancellor  Egerton  a  very  noble  passage, 
which  may  be  regarded  as  an  expansion  of  these  ■words;  indeed  it 
would  not  be  too  much  to  say  that  the  whole  poem  is  written  in 
honour  of  iTrie'iKsta-  or  '  equity,'  as  being 

"tlie  soul  of  law. 
The  life  of  justice,  and  the  spirit  of  right." 


210  SYNONYl^IS   OF   THE 

king;  the  same  therefore  was  justly  expected  from 
him.  The  word  is  often  joined  with  (fiiXavOpai'jTla 
(Polybius,  V.  10.  1  ;  Philo,  Be  Yit  Mos.  i.  36 ; 
2  Mace.  ix.  27);  with  fiaKpo6vfjiia  (Clemens  Rom. 
1  ^p.  13) ;  and,  besides  the  passage  in  the  l^ew 
Testament  (2  Cor.  x.  1),  often  with  irpaoTT)^ :  as  by 
Plutarch,  Pericles^  39  ;  Ccesar^  57  ;  cf.  Pyrrh.  23  ; 
De  Prof.  Virt.  9. 

The  distinction  existing  between  these  two, 
iTneUeta  and  7rpa6Tr]<i,  Estius,  on  2  Cor.  x.  1,  seizes 
in  part,  although  he  does  not  exhaust  it,  saying : 
Mansuetudo  [Trpaorr]^]  magis  ad  animum,  eTneUeta 
vero  magis  ad  exteriorem  conversationem  pertinet; 
cf.  Bengel :  irpaoTrj^  virtus  magis  absoluta,  eTneUeia 
magis  refertur  ad  alios.  Aquinas  too  has  a  fine 
and  subtle  discussion  on  the  relations  of  likeness 
and  difference  between  the  graces  which  these 
words  severally  denote  {Siunm.  Theol,  2*  2%  qto. 
157):  Utrum  Clementia  et  Mansuetudo  sint  peni- 
tus  idem.  Among  other  marks  of  difference  he 
especiall}^  urges  these  two ;  the  first  that  in  iTneUeia 
there  is  always  the  condescension  of  a  superior  to 
an  inferior,  while  in  irpaorrj^  nothing  of  the  kind  is 
necessarily  implied  :  Clementia  est  lenitas  supe- 
rioris  adversus  inferiorem ;  mansuetudo  non  solum 
est  su23erioris  ad  inferiorem,  sed  cujuslibet  ad  quem- 
libet ;  and  the  second,  that  which  has  been  already 
brought  forward,  that  the  one  grace  is  more  pas- 


KEW   TESTAMENT.  211 

sive,  the  other  more  active,  or  at  least  that  the 
seat  of  the  irpaorri';  is  in  the  inner  spirit,  while  the 
iirteUeLa  must  needs  embody  itself  in  outward  acts  : 
Differunt  ab  invicem  in  quantum  dementia  est 
moderativa  exterioris  punitionis,  mansuetudo  pro- 
prie  diminuit  passk)nem  iree. 


KXeTTTT/?  and  Xyarrj^i  occur  together  John  x.  1, 
8 ; '  cf.  Obad.  5 ;  Plato,  Pol.  i.  351  c ;  and  their 
meanings  coincide  so  far  that  the  one  and  the  other 
alike  appropriate  what  is  not  theirs,  but  the  /cXeTrrT?? 
by  fraud  and  in  secret  (Matt.  xxiv.  43 ;  John  xii.  6 ; 
cf.  Exod.  xxii.  2  ;  Jer.  ii.  26) ;  the  Xrjari]^  by  vio- 
lence and  openly  (2  Cor.  xi.  26;  cf.  Ezek.  xxii.  9; 
Jer.  vii.  11  ;  Plutarch,  De  Sujper.  3 :  ov  (j^o^elrai, 
Xrjara^  6  ol/covpayv) ;  the  one  is  the  *  thief  and  steals, 
the  other  the  '  robber '  and  plunders,  as  his  name, 
from  \7]i<;  or  Xeia  (as  our  own  '  robber,'  from  '  raub,' 
booty),  sufficiently  declares.  They  are  severally 
the  'fur'  and  'latro'  of  the  Latin.     Our  translators 

^  Tliey  do  not  constitute  there  a  tautology  or  rhetorical  ampli- 
fication ;  but  as  Grotius  "well  gives  their  several  meanings:  JFur 
[kActtttjs]  quia  venit  ut  rapiat  alienum ;  latro  [Xtia-Trjs']  quia  tit 
occidat,  ver.  10. 


212  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

have  always  rendered  KkkirTrj^s  by  'tliief;'  it  would 
have  been  well,  if  they  had  with  the  same  consist- 
ency rendered  Xijarr)^  by  '  robber ; '  but,  while  they 
have  done  so  in  some  places,  in  more  they  have 
not,  rendering  it  also  by  '  thief,'  and  thus  effacing 
the  distinction  between  the  words. 

We  cannot  indeed  charge  them  with  any  over- 
sight here,  as  we  might  those  who  at  the  present 
day  should  render  \r]aTrj<^  by  '  thief.'  Passages  out 
of  number  in  our  Elizabethian  literature  make  it 
abundantly  clear  that  there  was  in  their  day  no 
such  strong  distinction  between  '  thief  and  '  rob- 
ber'  as  now  exists.  Thus  Falstaff  and  his  company, 
who  with  open  violence  rob  the  king's  treasure  on 
the  king's  highway,  are  '  thieves '  throughout  Shak- 
sj)eare's  Henry  IV.  Still  there  are  several  places 
in  our  Yersion,  where  one  cannot  but  regret  that 
we  do  not  read  'robbers'  rather  than  'thieves.' 
Thus  Matt.  xxi.  13:  "My  house  shall  be  called 
the  house  of  prayer,  but  ye  have  made  it  a  den  of 
thieves  ;  "  so  we  read  it ;  but  it  is  '  robbers '  and  not 
'thieves'  that  have  dens  or  caves.  Again,  Matt, 
xxvi.  55:  "Are  ye  come  out  as  against  a  thief 
w^ith  swords  and  staves  for  to  take  me  ? " — but  it 
w^ould  be  against  some  bold  and  violent  robber 
that  a  party  armed  Avith  swords  and  clubs  would 
issue  forth,  not  against  a  lurking  thief.  The  poor 
traveller  in  the  parable  (Luke  x.  30)  fell  not  among 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  213 

^thieves,'  but  among  'robbers;'-  bloody  and  vio- 
lent men,  as  by  their  treatment  of  him  they  plainly 
declared. 

'No  jDassage  however  has  suffered  so  seriously 
from  this  confounding  of  'thief  and  'robber'  as 
the  history  of  him,  whom  we  are  used  to  call  '  the 
penitent  thief;'  the  anterior  moral  condition  of 
whom  is  probably  very  much  obscured  for  us,  and 
set  to  a  great  extent  in  a  wrong  light,  by  the  asso- 
ciations which  naturally  accompany  this  name.  It 
is  true  that  in  St.  Luke's  account  of  the  two  that 
are  crucified  with  Jesus,  the  one  obdurate,  the  other 
penitent,  the  w^ord  Xrja-rij?  does  not  occur  any  more 
than  K\e7rT7]<; :  they  are  styled  generally  KaKovpyoc, 
'  malefactors ; '  and  only  from  the  earlier  Evangel- 
ists their  more  special  designation  as  Xrjarai  has 
been  drawn.  In  all  probability  they  both  belonged 
to  the  band  of  Barabbas,  who  for  murder  and  in- 
surrection had  been  cast  with  his  fellow  insurgents 
into  prison  (Mark  xv.  7).  He  too  was  a  \rjarrjs 
(John  xviii.  40),  and  yet  no  common  malefactor,  on 
the  contrary  'a  notable  j)risoner'  {oeafiio^;  e7rla7}/jLo<;, 
Matt,  xxvii.  16).  i^ow  when  we  consider  the  en- 
thusiasm of  the  Jewish  populace  on  his  behalf,  and 
combine  this  with  the  fact  that  he  had  been  cast 
into  prison  for  an  unsuccessful  insurrection,  keej)- 
ing  in  mind  too  the  condition  of  the  Jews  at  this 
period,  with  false   Chi'ists,  false  deliverers,  every 


214  SYN0NY3*IS    OF   THE 

day  starting  up,  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  Barab- 
bas  was  one  of  those  stormy  zealots,  who  were  ever- 
more raising  anew  the  standard  of  resistance  against 
the  Roman  domination  ;  flattering  and  feeding  the 
insane  hopes  of  their  countrymen,  that  they  should 
yet  break  the  Koman  yoke  from  off  their  necks. 
These  men,  when  hard  pressed,  would  betake  them- 
selves to  the  mountains,  and  there  live  by  plunder, 
— if  j)ossible,  by  that  of  their  enemies,  if  not,  by 
that  of  any  within  their  reach.  The  history  of 
Dolcino's  '  Apostolicals,'  of  the  Camisards  in  the 
Cevennes,  makes  sufficiently  clear  the  downward 
progress  by  which  they  would  not  merely  obtain, 
but  deserve  to  obtain,  the  name  of  '  robbers.'  By 
the  Romans  they  would  naturally  be  called  and 
dealt  with  as  such  ;  nay,  in  that  great  perversion 
of  all  moral  sentiment  which  would  find  place  at 
such  a  period  as  this  was,  the  name,  like  '  klept ' 
among  the  modern  Greeks,  would  probably  cease 
to  be  dishonorable,  would  scarcely  be  refused  by 
themselves. 

Yet  of  how  different  a  stamp  and  character 
would  many  of  these  men,  these  last  protesters 
against  a  foreign  domination,  be  likely  to  be  from 
the  mean  and  cowardly  purloiner,  whom  we  call 
the  thief.  The  bands  of  these  Xrjarai^  while  they 
would  number  in  their  ranks  some  of  the  worst, 
would  probably  include  also  some  that  were  ori- 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  215 

glually  of  the  noblest  sj^irits,  of  the  nation — even 
though  thej  had  miserably  mistaken  the  moral 
necessities  of  their  time,  and  had  sought  to  work 
out  by  the  wrath  of  man  the  righteousness  of  God. 
Such  a  one  we  may  well  imagine  this  penitent 
XyaTTJ^i  to  have  been.  Should  there  be  any  truth 
in  such  a  view  of  his  former  condition, — and  cer- 
tainly it  would  go  far  to  explain  his  sudden  conver- 
sion,— it  is  altogether  kept  out  of  sight  by  the  name 
'  thief '  which  we  have  given  him ;  and  whether 
there  be  any  truth  in  it  or  not,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  he  would  be  more  accurately  called, 
'  the  penitent  roller  I! 


§  Xlv. ifXvVW^    vllTTO},    Xovo). 

We  have  but  the  one  Euglish  word,  '  to  wash,' 
with  which  to  render  these  three  Greek.  We  must 
needs  confess  here  to  a  certain  poverty,  seeing  that 
the  three  have  severally  a  propriety  of  their  own, 
— one  which  the  writers  of  the  ]N"ew  Testament 
always  observe, — and  could  not  be  promiscuously 
and  interchangeably  used.  Thus  TrXvvetv  is  always 
to  wash  inanimate  things^  as  distinguished  from 
living  objects  or  persons  ;  garments  most  fi-equently 
{e^fjuaraj    Homer,   II.    xxii.    155  ;    I/jlcltlov,    Plato, 


216  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

Charm.  161  e  ;  and  in  the  Septuagint  continually ; 
so  aroXd^:,  Hev.  vii.  4)  ;  but  not  exclusively  these, 
which  some  have  erroneously  asserted,  as  witness 
the  only  other  occasion  where  the  word  occurs  in 
the  'New  Testament,  being  there  employed  to  sig- 
nify the  washing  or  cleansing  of  nets  (BUrva,  Luke 
V.  2).  When  the  Psalmist  exclaims,  TrXvvov  /uue 
airo  T7]<i  dvo/jLLa^  (Ps.  1.  [li.]  3  ;  cf.  ver.  9),  these 
words  must  not  be  cited  in  disj)roof  of  this  asser- 
tion that  only  of  things,  and  not  of  persons,  ifXvveLv 
is  used ;  for  the  allusion  to  the  hyssop  which  fol- 
lows j)resently  after,  shows  plainly  that  David  had 
the  ceremonial  aspersions  of  the  Levitical  law  pri- 
marily in  his  eye,  which  aspersions  would  find 
place  upon  the  garments  of  the  unclean  j)erson 
(Lev.  xiv.  19  ;  Numb.  xix.  6),  however  he  may  have 
looked  through  these  to  another  and  better  sprink- 
ling beyond. 

NlirreLv  and  Xovecv,  on  the  other  hand,  express 
the  washing  of  living  persons  ;  although  with  this 
difference,  that  vLTrrecv  (which  displaced  in  the  later 
period  of  the  language  the  Attic  vl^etv)  and  z/t^/ra- 
a-dat  almost  always  express  the  washing  of  a  part 
of  the  body, — the  hands  (Mark  vii.  3),  the  feet 
(John  xiii.  5  ;  Plutarch,  Thes.  10),  the  face  (Matt.  vi. 
17),  the  eyes  (John  ix.  Y),  the  back  and  shoulders 
(Homer,  Od.  vi.  221) ;  while  Xovecv,  which  is  not  so 
much  '  to  wash  'as  'to  bathe,'  and  XovaOat,  or  in 


NEAV    TESTAMENT.  217 

common  Greek  XoveaOac,  '  to  bathe  oneself,'  imply 
always,  not  the  bathing  of  a  part  of  the  body,  but 
of  the  whole :  XeXov/xevoo  to  aco/xa,  Heb.  x.  23  ;  cf. 
Acts  ix.  37 ;  2  Pet.  ii.  22  ;  Eev.  i.  5 ;  Plato,  jPhcecl 
115  a.  This  limitation  of  VLTrreiv  to  persons  as 
contradistinguished  from  things,  which  is  always 
observed  in  the  Xew  Testament,  is  not  without 
exceptions,  although  they  are  very  unfrequent, 
elsewhere  ;  thus,  in  Homer  11.  xvi.  229,  SeVa? : 
Ocl.  i.  112,  TpuTre^af; :  Lev.  xv.  12,  aKevo^.  A  sin- 
gle verse  in  the  SejDtuagint  (Lev.  xv.  11)  gives  us 
all  the  three  words,  and  all  used  in  their  exact  pro- 
priety of  meaning :  Kal  oacov  eav  ay^rjrai,  6  yovop- 
pvr]<;  Kal  ra?  %et/3a9  ov  vevLiTTai  vSarc,  rrXwel 
Ta  ifidrta,  Kal  Xo uaeTat  to  acofia  vSaTt. 

The  passage  where  it  is  most  important  to  mark 
the  distinction  between  the  last  considered  words, 
the  one  signifying  the  washing  of  a  part,  and  the 
other  the  washing  of  the  whole,  of  the  body,  and 
where  certainly  our  English  version  loses  some- 
thing in  clearness  from  not  possessing  words  which 
should  note  the  change  that  finds  place  in  the  origi- 
nal, is  Johnxiii.  Ij:  '' He  that  is  washed  [6  XeXov- 
/jb€vo<;']  needeth  not  save  to  vxish  \y  l-^^r  a  a  0  a  i\  his 
feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."  ^     The  foot-washing 

^  The  Latin  labours  under  iLe  same  defect;  tlius  in  the  Vulgate 
it  stands :  Qui  lotus  est,  non  indiget  nisi  ut  pedes  lavet.    De  Wette 
10 


218  SYNOi^YMS    OF   THE 

was  a  symbolic  act.  St.  Peter  had  not  perceived 
this  at  the  first,  and,  not  perceiving  it,  had  ex- 
claimed, "  Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet."  But 
so  soon  as  ever  the  true  meaning  of  what  his  Lord 
was  doing  flashed  upon  him,  he  who  had  before 
refused  to  suffer  Him  to  wash  even  his  feet,  now 
asked  to  be  washed  altogether :  "  Lord,  not  my  feet 
only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head."  Christ  re- 
plies, that  it  needed  not  this ;  Peter  had  been  al- 
ready made  partaker  of  the  great  washing,  of  that 
forgiveness  which  reached  to  the  whole  man ;  he 
was  \€Xov/jbivo<;,  and  this  great  absolving  act  did  not 
need  to  be  repeated,  as,  indeed,  it  was  not  capable 
of  repetition :  "  Now  ye  are  clean  through  the  word 
which  I  have  spoken  nnto  you"  (John  xv.  3).  But 
while  it  was  thus  with  him,  he  did  need  at  the  same 
time  to  wash  Ms  feet  {vlyjraaOat  tov<;  TroSa?),  ever- 
more to  cleanse  himself,  which  could  only  be 
through  suffering  his  Lord  to  cleanse  him  from  the 
defilements  which  even  he,  a  justified,  and  in  part 
also  a  sanctified  man,  should  gather  as  he  moved 
through  a  sinful  world.  The  whole  mystery  of  our 
justification,  which  is  once  for  al^  reaching  to  every 
need,  embracing  our  whole  being,  and  our  sanctifi- 
cation,  which  must  daily  go  forward,  is  wrapped 


has  sought  to  preserve  the  variation  of  word:  Wer  gehadet  ist,  der 
braucht  sich  nicht  als  an  den  Fiissen  zu  waschen. 


isEW    TESTAMENT.  219 

up  in  the  antithesis  between  the  two  words.  This 
Augustine  has  expressed  clearly  and  well  {In  Ev. 
Joli.  xiii.  10) :  Homo  in  sancto  quidem  baptismo 
totus  abluitur,  non  j^rseter  pedes,  sed  totus  omnino : 
veruntamen  cum  in  rebus  humanis  postea  vivitur, 
utique  terra  calcatur.  Ipsi  igitur  humani  affectus, 
sine  quibus  in  hac  mortalitate  non  vivitur,  quasi 

pedes  sunt,  ubi  ex  humanis  rebus  afficimur 

Quotidie  ergo  j)edes  lavat  nobis,  qui  interpellat  pro 
nobis :  et  quotidie  nos  opus  habere  ut  pedes  lave- 
mus  in  ipsa  Oratione  Dominica  confitemur,  cum 
dicimus,  Dimitte  nobis  debita  nostra. 


§  xlvi. — ^w?,  </)e')"yo?,   cpcoaryjp,  \v')(vo<;,  Xafxird'^. 

All  these  words  are  rendered  either  occasion- 
ally or  always,  in  our  version,  by  'light;'  thus 
(/)w?.  Matt.  iv.  16  ;  Eom.  xiii.  12  ;  and  often ;  ^ey- 
709,  Matt.  xxiv.  29 ;  Mark  xiii.  24 ;  Luke  xi.  33, 
being  the  only  three  occasions  upon  which  the  word 
occurs  ;  (pcoarijp,  Phil.  ii.  15  ;  Eev.  xxi.  11,  the  only 
two  occasions  of  its  occurrence ;  Xu;^z^o?,  Matt.  vi. 
22  ;  John  v.  33 ;  2  Pet.  i.  19,  and  elsewhere ;  though 
also  often  by  '  candle,'  as  at  Matt.  v.  15 ;  Rev.  xxii. 
5  ;  and  Xa/ivra?,  Acts  xx.  8,  but  elsewhere  by  '  lamp,' 


220  SYNOKYMS    OF    THE 

as  at  Matt.  xxv.  1 ;   Eev.  viii.  10 ;  and  by  ^  torch,' 
as  at  John  xviii.  3. 

Hesjchius  and  the  old  grammarians  distinguish 
between  (pm  and  ^eyyo?  (which  were  originally 
one  and  the  same  word),  that  (^&)9  is  the  light  of  the 
sun  or  of  the  day,  ^eyyo?  the  light  or  lustre  of  the 
moon.  Any  such  distinction  is  very  far  from  being 
constantly  maintained  even  by  the  Attic  writers 
themselves,  to  whom  it  is  said  more  peculiarly  to 
belong ;  thus  in  Sophocles  alone  ^ey^yo^  is  three  or 
four  times  applied  to  the  sun  {Antig.  800 ;  Ajax, 
654,  840 ;  Tracliin.  59Y) ;  while  in  Plato  we  meet 
^co?  o-eXrjvr}?  {Pol.  vii.  516  h;  cf.  Isa.  xiii.  10  ;  Ezek. 
xxxii.  Y).  Still  there  is  truth  in  that  which  the 
grammarians  have  observed,  that  <peyyo<;  is  predomi- 
nantly applied  to  the  light  of  the  moon  or  other 
luminaries  of  the  night  (Plato,  Pol.  vi.  508  c),  (/)a)? 
to  that  of  the  sun  or  of  the  day.  'Nov  is  it  unwor- 
thy of  note  that  this,  like  so  many  other  finer  dis- 
tinctions of  the  Greek  language,  is  thus  far  observed 
in  the  New  Testament,  that  on  the  only  occasions 
when  the  light  of  the  moon  is  mentioned,  (j>eyjo<;  is 
the  word  employed  (Matt.  xxiv.  29 ;  Mark  xiii.  24 ; 
cf.  Joel  ii.  10;  iii.  15),  as  (j)m  where  that  of  the  sun 
(Kev.  xxii.  5).  Prom  what  has  been  said  it  will 
follow  that  </)w?  and  not  ^eyyo^.,  is  the  true  antithe- 
sis to  aKOTo^  (Plato,  Pol.  vii.  518  a ;  Matt.  vi.  23 ; 
1  Pet.  ii.  9) ;  and  generally  that  the  former  wdll  be 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  221 

the  more  absolute  word ;  thus  Hab.  iii.  4,  koX  c^iy- 
yo?  avTov  [rod  Geou]  a)<;  cf)co<;  earat.  (See  Doder- 
lein,  Led.  Synon.  yoL  ii.  p.  69). 

^coaryjp,  it  has  been  already  observed,  is  ren- 
dered '  light '  in  our  version,  on  the  two  occasions 
upon  which  it  occurs.  The  first  of  these  is  Phil, 
ii.  15:  "Among  whom  ye  shine  as  lights  in  the 
world"  (o)?  (jycocrTrjpe^;  ev  Koafiw).  It  would  be 
difficult  to  improve  on  this  rendering,  while  yet  it 
fails  to  mark  with  all  the  precision  which  one  would 
desire  the  exact  similitude  which  tlie  Apostle  in- 
tends. The  (f>coaTr]p€?  here  are  undoubtedly  the 
heavenly  bodies,  ('  luminaria,'  as  the  Yulgate  has 
it  well,  '  Himmelslichter,'  as  De  Wette),  and  mainly 
the  sun  and  moon,  the  'lights,'  or  'great  lights' 
(=  '  luces,'  Cicero,  poet.),  of  which  Moses  speaks. 
Gen.  i.  11,  16 ;  at  which  place  the  Septuagint  has 
(f>coarrjp€^  for  the  Hebrew  ni^5<'3.  Cf.  Ecclus.  xliii. 
7,  where  the  moon  is  called  (pcoanjp :  and  Wisd. 
xiii.  2,  where  (^cc>aTrjpe<;  ovpavov  is  exactly  equiva- 
lent to  (j)coaTrjpe<;  ev  Kocr^w  at  Phil.  ii.  15;  which 
last  is  to  be  taken  as  one  j^hrase,  the  K6cr/jLo<;  being 
the  material  world,  the  arepeofxa  or  firmament,  not 
the  ethical  world,  which  has  been  already  expressed 
by  the  yevea  aKoXta  kol  SLearpa/jL/jbevT]. 

So  also,  on  the  second  occasion  of  the  word's 
appearing,  Eev.  xxi.  11,  where  we  have  translated, 
"  Jler  light  [6  (pcoarrjp  avrrjs;^  was  like  unto  a  stone 


222  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

most  precious,"  it  would  not  be  easy  to  propose 
anything  better;  and  the  authors  of  our  version 
certainly  did  well  in  going  back  to  this,  Wiclif  s 
translation,  and  in  displacing  "Aer  shining^'^  which 
has  found  place  in  the  intermediate  versions,  and 
which  onust  have  conveyed  a  wrong  impression  to 
the  English  reader.  Still,  "her  liglit"  is  not  quite 
satisfactory,  being  not  wholly  unambiguous.  It, 
too,  onay  present  itself  to  the  English  reader  as,  the 
ligiit  which  the  Heavenly  City  diffused ;  when,  in- 
deed, (f)W(jT->]p  means,  that  which  diffused  light  to 
the  Heavenly  City,  its  luminary,  or  light-giver. 
What  this  light-giver  was,  we  learn  from  ver.  23  : 
"the  Lamb  is  the  light  thereof;"  6  Xvx^o^  avrrj^ 
there  being  =  6  (fxoarrjp  avTrj<;  here. 

In  res^^ect  of  Xv^^o^  and  Xa/jLird^,  it  may  very 
well  be  a  question  whether  the  actual  disposition 
made  by  our  translators  of  the  words  which  they 
had  at  their  command  was  the  best  which  could  have 
been  adopted.  If  instead  of  translating  XafiTrd^ 
'  torch '  on  a  single  occasion  (John  xviii.  3),  they 
had  always  done  so,  this  would  have  left  'lamj3,' 
now  aj)propriated  by  Xafiird^,  disengaged.  Alto- 
gether dismissing  '  candle,'  they  might  have  ren- 
dered Xv)(yo<;  by  'lamp,'  in  all,  or  certainly  very 
nearly  all,  the  passages  where  it  occurs.  At  i^resent 
there  are  so  many  occasions  where  '  candle '  would 
manifestly  be  ina23propriate,  and  where,  therefore. 


NEW  testa:ment.  223 

tliey  are  obliged  to  fall  back  on  '  ligbt,'  tliat  the 
distinction  between  6(o<;  and  \v')(yo<i  nearlj,  if  not 
quite,  disappears  in  our  version. 

The  advantages  of  such  a  re-arrangement  of  the 
words  appear  to  me  not  inconsiderable.  In  the  first 
place,  the  English  words  would  more  nearly  repre- 
sent the  Greek  originals :  Xv^J^o^  is  not  a  candle 
('  candela,'  from  '  candeo,'  the  white  wax  light,  and 
then  any  kind  of  taper),  but  a  hand-lamp  fed  with 
oil ;  while  Xa^Tra?  is  not  a  lamp  at  all,  but  a  torch, 
and  this  not  merely  in  the  purer  times  of  the  lan- 
guage, but  also  in  the  later  Hellenistic  Greek  as 
well  (Polybius,  iii.  93.  4;  Herodian,  iv.  2;  Judg. 
vii.  16,  20) ;  and  so,  I  believe,  always  in  the  l^ew 
Testament.  In  proof  that  at  Kev.  viii.  10,  Xafiird^ 
should  be  translated  '  torch,'  ('  Fackel,'  De  Wette,) 
see  Aristotle,  De  Muiid.  4.  And  even  in  the  para- 
ble of  the  Ten  Yirgins  it  would  be  better  so.  It 
may  be  urged,  indeed,  that  there  the  Xa/xTraSe?  are 
nourished  with  oil,  and  must  needs  therefore  be 
lamps.  A  quotation,  however,  from  Elphinstone 
{History  of  India,  vol.  i.  p.  333),  will  show  that  in 
the  East  the  torch,  as  well  as  the  lamp,  is  fed  in 
this  manner.  He  says  :  "  The  true  Hindu  way  of 
lighting  up  is  by  torches  held  by  men,  who  feed 
the  flame  with  oil  from  a  sort  of  bottle  "  [the  a<y- 
ryelov  of  Matt.  XXV.  4]  "  constructed  for  the  pur- 
pose." 


224  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  indicate  more  pas- 
sages than  one,  wliicli  would  be  gainers  in  perspicu- 
ity by  sucli  a  rearrangement  as  has  been  proposed, 
especially  by  marking  more  clearly,  wherever  this 
were  possible,  the  diiierence  between-  ^w?  and  Xv- 
X^o<;.  Thus  2  Pet.  i.  19  is  one  of  these ;  but  still 
more  so  John  v.  35.  "We  there  make  our  Lord  to 
say.  of  the  Baptist,  "  He  was  a  burning,  and  a  shin- 
ing light  ^^ — the  words  of  the  original  being,  eKelvo^ 
rjv  6  Xv-^vok  0  KatofjLevo';  koX  (paivcov.  The  Vulgate 
has  rendered  tliem  better  :  Ille  erat  hicerna  ardens 
et  liiceiis  ;  not  obliterating^  as  we  have  done,  the 
whole  antithesis  between  Christ,  the  ^w?  aXrjOivov 
(John  i.  8),  the  (/)c3?  i/c  (pcoro^j  the  Eternal  Zig/it, 
which,  as  it  was  never  kindled,  so  should  never  be 
quenched,  and  the  Baptist,,  a  lani/p  tindled  by  the 
hands  of  Another,  in  whose  light  riien  might  for  a 
Beas.on  rejoice,  and  which  was  then  extinguished 
again.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  in  the  use 
of  Xvxvo^liere  and.  at  l.Pet.  i,  19,, being  here  tacitly 
contrasted  with  <pm,  and  there  openly  with  (f)wa<^6- 
po^,  the  same  opposition  is  intended,  only  now 
transferred  to  the  highest  sphere  of  the  spiritual 
world,  which  the  poet  had  in  his  mind  when  he 
wrote,— 

"  JSTiglit's  candles  are  burnt  out,  and  jocund  Day 
Stands  tiptoe  on  the  misty  mountain  tops." 


liTEw  testa]!ji:nt.  225 


§  xlvii. — X"P^^5  eXeo?. 

Of  %apt9  we  have  the  following  definition  (Aris- 
totle, Rhet.  ii.  7);  earw  hrj  %«/3t9  KaO'  fjv  6  excov 
Xijerai  %a/)fci^  virovpyeiv  tc5  Seo/juiva),  /jlt]  clvtI  t^z^o?, 
fjL7]B^  Iva  ri,  avrw  tS  virovpyovvTi^  dW^  'Iva  i/ceivw  tl. 
The  word '  is  often  found  associated  with  e\eo? 
(1  Tim.  i.  2  ;  2  Tim.  i.  2  ;  Tit.  i.  4 ;-  2  John  3) ;  it  is 
in  this  association  only,  and  as  signifying  the  Divine 
compassion,  that  I  wish  to  speak  of  it  here.  But 
though  standing  in  closest  ■  inner  as  well  as  outer 
connexion,  there  is  this  difference  between  them, 
that  %a/3t?  has  reference  to  the  sins  of  men,  eXeo?  to 
their  misei'y.  God's  %«/?fc?,  his  free  grace  and  gift, 
is  extended  to  men,  as  thej  are  guilty,  his  eXeo?  is 
extended  to  them  as  they  are  miserable.'  The 
lower  creation  may  be,  and  is,  the  object  of  God's 
eXeo9,  inasmuch  as  the  burden  of  man's  curse  has 
redounded  also  upon  it  (Job  xxxviii.  41 ;-  Ps.  clxvii. 
9 ;  Jonah  iv.  11),  but  of  his  xa/of-?  man  alone ;  he 
only  needs,  he  only  is  capable  of  receiving  it.     In 

^  It  will  be  seen  that. the  Stoic  definition  of  ^K^os,  to  wit,  Kvtvt] 
&S  iirl  ava^lcas  KaKoiraOovvTi  (Diogenes  Laertius,  vii.  1.  63;  cf.  Aris- 
totle, Ehet.  ii.  S),  breaks  down  at  two  points  when  transferred  tc 
the  Divine  compassion,  which  has  not  grief  in  it,  and  is  very  far 
from  being  limited  to  those  who  suffer  unworthily, 
10* 


226  SYNONYMS   OF   THE 

the  Divine  mind,  and  in  the  order  of  our  salvation 
as  conceived  therein,  the  eXeo?  precedes  the  %a/3i?. 
God  so  loved  the  world  with  a  pitying  love  (herein 
was  the  eXeo?)  that  He  gave  his  only-begotten  Son 
(herein  the  %a/ot9)  that  the  world  through  Him 
might  be  saved :  cf.  E]3h.  ii.  4 ;  Luke  i.  Y8,  Y9.  But 
in  the  order  of  the  manifestation  of  God's  purposes 
of  salvation  the  grace  must  go  before  the  mercy,  the 
Xapi'^  must  make  way  for  the  eXeo?.  It  is  true  that 
the  same  persons  are  the  subjects  of  both,  being  at 
once  the  guilty  and  the  miserable ;  yet  the  right- 
eousness of  God,  which  it  is  just  as  necessary  should 
be  maintained  as  his  love,  demands  that  the  guilt 
should  be  done  away  before  the  misery  can  be  as- 
suaged ;  only  the  forgiven  can,  or  indeed  may,  be 
made  happy ;  whom  He  has  pardoned.  He  heals  ; 
men  are  justified  before  they  are  sanctified.  Thus 
in  each  of  the  apostolic  salutations  it  is  first  %a/3i9, 
and  then  eXeo?,  which  the  Apostle  desires  for  the 
faithful  (Eom.  i.  7 ;  1  Cor.  i.  3 ;  2  Cor.  i.  2 ;  Gal.  i. 
3 ;  Eph.  i.  2 ;  Phil.  i.  2,  &c.) ;  nor  could  the  order 
of  the  words  be  reversed. 


NEW    TESTA3IENT.  227 


§  xlviii. — ^eoaepr}^^  eucre/^/J?,   ev\a/3i]<;,   dprjdKo^, 
SeLacSalficov. 

©eoae^rj^,  an  ej)itliet  three  times  applied  to  Job 
(i.  1,  8  ;  ii.  3),  occurs  only  once  in  the  Xew  Testa- 
ment (John  ix.  31) ;  and  Oeoae/Seia  no  oftener  (1  Tim. 
ii.  10).  Evae^T]^,  with  the  words  related  to  it,  is  of 
more  frequent  occurrence  (1  Tim.  ii.  2 ;  Acts  x.  2  ; 
2  Pet.  ii.  9,  and  often).  Before  we  proceed  to  con- 
sider the  relation  of  these  to  the  other  words  of  this 
group,  a  subordinate  distinction  between  them- 
selves, may  fitly  be  noted ;  this,  namely,  that  in 
Oeoae^rj^  is  necessarily  implied  by  its  very  deriva- 
tion, i^iety  toward  God^  or  toward  the  gods  /  while 
evaefBr}^^  often  as  it  means  this,  yet  also  may  mean 
piety  in  the  fulfilment  of  human  relations,  as  toward 
parents  or  others  (Euripides,  Elect.  253,  254),  the 
Avord  according  to  its  etymology  only  implying 
'  worship '  (in  our  older  use  of  the  word)  and  rever- 
ence well  and  rightly  directed.  It  has  in  fact  the 
same  double  meaning  as  the  Latin  '  pietas,'  which 
is  not  merely  ^justitia  adversiim  Deos'^  (Cicero,  De 
jVat.  Deor.  i.  41) ;  a  double  meaning,  which,  deeply 
instructive  as  it  is,  yet  proves  occasionally  embar- 
rassing in  respect  of  both  one  word  and  the  other ; 
so  that  on  several  occasions  Augustine,  when  he  has 


228  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

need  of  an  accurate  nomenclature,  and  is  nsing 
'pietaSj'  pauses  to  observe  that  lie  means  by  it  what 
evak(3eia  indeed  may  mean,  but  OeoaejBeia  alone  must 
mean,  namely,  piety  iaztT^TZ-^ycj/Z  {De  Civ.  Dei,  x.  1 ; 
Enchir.V).  .  At-thesarae^time.'eL'o-eySeta,  which  the 
Stoics'  defined.  eiTiafrifL'qOeoivdepaTfeLa^  (Diogenes 
Laertius,-vii/r.'64j  1-1 9),^  and  which  was  not 'eYery 
reyerencing.  of-  thfe^  gods,  -but  a  reverencing  of  them 
arifJit  \ev)y  is -the- staaiditig  word  to  express  this 
piety,  both  in  itself^  (Seiic^phon,  Ages.  iii.  5 ;  xi.  1), 
and  as  it  is  the  true  meart  between  a^e6T-7;?-and  Set- 
o-i8ai/itoj//a  (Plutarch,  De  Suj^erst.  lit). 

■  rWhat  fmgjii  otherwise  have  required  to  be,  said 
on  euXa^TJ?'  lias  D&^a,a;lready  anticipated  in  part  in 
considering' the- word  euid^etct  (see  j).  58);  yet 
something  further  may  be  added  here.  It  was 
there  observed  how  the  word  passed  over  from  sig- 
nifying caution  and  carefulness  in  resj^ect  of  human 
things  to  the  same  in  respect  of  divine;  the  Ger- 
man '  Andacht '  had  very  much  the  same  history 
(see. Grimm,  Wdrterhiich,  s.  v.).  The  only  three 
places  in  the  Kew  Testament  in  which  evXa^/]?  oc- 
curs are  these,  Luke  ii.  25  ;  Acts  ii.  5  ;  viii.  2.  "We 
have  uniformly  translated  it  '  devout ; '  nor  could 
any  better  equivalent  be  offered  for  it.  It  will  be 
observed  .that  on  all  these  occasions  it  is  used  to  ex- 
press Jewish,  and,  as  one  might  say,  Old  Testament 
piety.     On  the  first  it  is  applied  to  Simeon  (BLKaLo<; 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  229 

Koi  evXa^rjs) ',  on  the  second,  to  those  Jews  who 
came  from  distant  parts  to  keep  the  commanded 
feasts  at  Jerusalem ;  and  on  the  thn-d  there  can 
scarcely  be  a  donbt  that  the  aVSpe?  euXa/Set?  who 
carry .  Stephen  to  his  burial,  are  not,  as  might  at 
first  sight  app'ear,  Christian  brethren;  but  devout 
Jews,  who  showed  by  this  com-ageous  act  of"  theirs, 
as  by  their  great  lamentation  over  the  slaughtered 
sainty  that,  they  abhorred  this  deed  of  blood,  that 
they  separated  themselves  in  sj)irit  from  it,  and 
thus,  if  it  might  be,  from  all- the"  judgments  which 
it  would  bring  down  on  the  city  of  those  murderers. 
Whether  it  was  also  further  given  them  to' believe 
en  the-Grxicified,  who  had  such  witnesses  as  Ste- 
phen, we  are  not  told ;  we  may  well  presume  that 
it  was. 

'-  If  we  keep  in  mind  that  in  that  mingled  fear 
and  love  which  together  constitute  the  piety  of  man 
toward  God,  the  Old  Testament  placed  its  empha- 
sis on  the  fear,  the  Xew  places  it  on  the  love,  thougli 
there  was  love  in  the  fear  of  God's  saints  then,  and 
there  must  be  fear  in  their  love  now,  it  will  at  once 
be  evident  how  fitly  et'Xa/S/J?  was  chosen  to  set  forth 
their  piety  under  the  Old  Covenant,  who  like  Zach- 
arias  and  Elisabeth  "  were  righteous  before  God, 
walking  in  all  the  commandments  and  ordinances 
of  the  Lord  blameless,"  (Luke  i.  G),  and  leaving 
nothing  willingly  undone  which  pertained  to  the 


230  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

circle  of  tlieir  j)i'escribed  duties.  For  this  sense  of 
accurately  and  scrupulously  jDcrforming  tliat  wliicli 
is  prescribed,  with  the  consciousness  of  the  danger 
of  slipping  into  a  careless  negligent  performance 
of  God's  service,  and  of  the  need  therefore  of  anx- 
iously watching  against  the  adding  to  or  diminish- 
ing from,  or  in  any  other  way  altering,  that  which 
is  commanded,  lies  ever  in  the  words  euXa/S^j?,  evXd- 
jSeta,  when  used  in  their  religious  significance  J 

Plutarch,  in  more  than  one  very  instructive 
passage,  exalts  the  evXdfieia  of  the  old  Komans  in 
divine  matters  as  contrasted  with  the  comparative 
carelessness  of  the  Greeks.  Thus  in  his  Coriolanus 
(c.  25),  after  other  instances  in  proof,  he  goes  on  to 
say  :  "  Of  late  times  also  they  did  renew  and  begin 
a  sacrifice  thirty  times  one  after  another;  because 
they  thought  still  there  fell  out  one  fault  or  other 
in  the  same ;  so  holy  and  devout  were  they  to  the 
gods "  {roLavTrj  jiiev  evXa/Seca  tt^o?  to  Oelov  'Pco- 
fiaLcov).^  Elsewhere,  he  pourtrays  ^milius  Paulus 
(c.  3)  as  eminent  for  his  evXa/Seta.     The  jpassage  is 

'  Cicero's  well-known  words  deducing  *  religio '  from  '  relegere ' 
may  be  here  fitly  quoted  {De  Nat.  Deor.  ii.  28) :  Qui  omnia  quse 
ad  cultum  deorum  pertinerent,  diligenter  retractarent,  et  tanquam 
relegerent,  sunt  dicti  rcligiosi. 

^  l^ortKs  Plutarch,  p.  195.  Cf.  Aulus  Gellius,  ii.  28:  Veteres 
Romani ....  in  constituendis  religionibus  atque  in  diis  immortali- 
bus  animadvertendis  castissimi  cautissimique. 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  231 

long,  and  I  "vrill  only  quote  a  portion  of  it,  availing 
myself  again  of  old  Sir  Thomas  North's  translation, 
wliicb,  thongli  somewhat  loose,  is  in  essentials  cor- 
rect :  "  When  he  did  anything  belonging  to  his 
office  of  priesthood,  he  did  it  with  great  experience, 
judgment  and  diligence ;  leaving  all  other  thoughts, 
and  without  omitting  any  ancient  ceremony,  or 
adding  to  any  new  ;  contending  oftentimes  with  his 
companions  in  things  which  seemed  light  and  of 
small  moment ;  declaring  to  them  that  though  we 
do  presume  the  gods  are  easy  to  be  pacified,  and 
that  they  readily  pardon  all  faults  and  scapes  com- 
mitted by  negligence,  yet  if  it  were  no  more  but 
for  respect  of  the  commonwealth's  sake  they  should 
not  slightly  or  carelessly  dissemble  or  pass  over 
faults  committed  in  those  matters  "  (p.  206). 

But  if  in  €u\al3r)^  we  have  the  anxious  and  the 
scrupulous  Avorshipper,  who  makes  a  conscience  of 
changing  anything,  of  omitting  anything,  being 
above  all  things  fearful  to  offend,  we  have  in  Opija-- 
Ko<;,  which  still  more  nearly  corresponds  to  the  Latin 
'  religiosus,'  the  zealous  and  diligent  performer  of 
the  divine  offices,  of  the  outward  service  of  God. 
OprjaKEia  (=  *  cultus,'  or  perhaps  more  strictly, 
'  cultus  exterior ' ),  is  predominantly  the  ceremonial 
service  of  religion,  the  external  forms  or  body,  of 
which  evai^eia  is  the  informing  soul.  The  sugges- 
tion that  the  word  is  derived  from  Orpheus  the 


232  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

Thracian,  who  brought  in  the  celebration  of, re- 
ligious mysteries,  etymologically  worthless,  yet 
points,  and  no  doubt  truly,  to  the  celebration  of 
divine  offices  as  the  fundamelital  notion  of  the 
word. 

How  finely  chosen  then  are  these  words ^By  St. 
James  (i.  26,  27),  and  how  rich  a  meaning  do  they 
contain.'  " If  any  man,"  he  would  say,  "seem  to 
himself  to  be  OpriaKo^^  a  diligent  observer  of  the 
offices  of  religion,  if  any  man  would  render  a  pure 
and  undefiled  OprjaKeCa  to  God, -let' him  know  that 
this  consists  not  in  outward  lustrations  or  ceremonial 
observances  ;  nay,  that  there  is  a  better  dprja/cela 
than  thousands  of  rams  and  rivers  of  oil,  namely  to 
do  justly  and  to  love  mercy  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  his  God  "  .  (Mic.  vi.  7,-  8) ;  or,  in  the  Apostle's' 
own  language,  "  to  vi^it  the  widows  and  orphans  in 
their  affliction,  and  to  keep  himself  unspotted  from 
the  world  "  (cf.  Matt,  xxiii.  23).  He  is  not  herein 
affirming,  as  we  sometimes  hear,  these  offices  to  be 
the  sum  total,  nor  yet  the  great  essentials,  of  true 
religion,  but  declares  them  to  be  the  body,  the 
OpTja-Kela,  of  which  godliness,  or  the  love  of  God,  is 
the  informing  soul.  His  intention  is  somewhat  ob- 
scured to  the  English  reader  from  the  fact  that  '  re- 
ligious '  and  '  religion,'  by  which  we  have  rendered 
OprjaKo^  and  OpTjcTKela,  possessed  a  meaning  once 
which   they  now  possess  no  longer,  and  in  that 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  233 

meaning  are  here  employed.  St.  James  wonld,  in 
tact,  claim  for  tlie  Christian  faith  a  superiority  over 
the  old  dispensation,  in  that  its  very  Oprja-Kela  con- 
sists in  acts  of  mercy,  of  love,  of  holiness,  in  that 
it  has  light  f 07'  its  garment,  its  very  rohe  being 
righteousness;  herein  how  much  nobler  than  that 
old,  whose  OprjaKela  was  merely  ceremonial  and 
formal,  whatever  inner  truth  it  might  embody. 
These  observations  are  made  by  Coleridge  {Aids  to 
Reflection,  1825,  p.  15),  who  at  the  same  time  com- 
plains of  our  rendering  of  6pr]aKo<i  and  OprjcrKela  as 
erroneous.  But  it  is  not  so  much  erroneous  as  ob- 
solete ;  an  alternative  indeed  which  he  has  himself 
suggested  as  its  possible  justification,  though  he 
was  not  aware  of  any  such  use  of  '  religion '  in  the 
time  that  our  version  was  made  as  w^ould  bear  out 
the  translators.  Milton  however  will  at  once  sup- 
j)ly  an  example  of  a  passage  in  which  '  religion '  is 
used  to  express  an  outward  ceremonial  service,  and 
not  the  inner  devotedness  of  heart  and  life  to  God. 
Some  of  the  heathen  idolatries  he  characterizes  as 
being 

"adorned 
Witli  gay  religions  full  of  pomp  and  gold." 

Paradise  Lost,  b.  i. 

And  our  Homilies  will  supply  many  more  :  thus  in 
that  Against  Peril  of  Idolatry :  "  Images  used  for 
no  religion,  or  superstition  rather,  we  mean  of  none 


234:  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

worshipped,  nor  in  clanger  to  be  worshipped  of  any, 
may  be  suffered. "  A  very  instructive  passage  on 
the  merely  external  character  of  OprjaKeia^  which 
also  I  am  confident  our  translators  intended  to  ex- 
press by  their  '  religion,'  occurs  in  Philo  {Quod  Det. 
Pot.  Insid.  Y) ;  having  repelled  those  w^ho  would 
fain  he  counted  among  the  evae^eh  on  the  score  of 
divers  washings,  or  costly  offerings  to  the  temple, 
he  proceeds  :  TreTrXdvrjrac  yap  kol  ovro<;  t^9  Trpo? 
euae^eiav  oSov,  6 prja K€ lav  avrl  oa i6t7]to<;  rjyov- 
fievo^.  The  readiness  with  which  OprjaKeia  declined 
into  the  meaning  of  superstition,  service  of  false 
gods  (Wisd.  xiv.  18,  27;  xi.  16;  Col.  ii.  18),  itself 
indicates  that  it  had  more  to  do  with  the  form,  than 
with  the  essence,  of  piety.  Thus  Gregory  Nazian- 
zene  {laiiib.  xv.) : 

&p7i(TKelav  ol8a  Kat  rh  Sai/xoi/oov  (Tefias, 
'H   S'   €U(T  e  fie  la  irpoaKvuiqais  Tpid'Bos. 

To  come  now  to  the  concluding  word  of  this 
group.  AeLcnSalficov,  and  SecacBaifMovla  as  well,  had 
at  first  an  honourable  use  ;  as  perhaps  also  '  super- 
stitio '  and  '  superstitiosus '  had ;  at  least  there  seems 
indication  of  such  in  the  use  of  '  superstitiosus '  by 
Plautus  {Citrcul.  iii.  27 ;  Amphit.  i.  1.  169).  The 
philosophers  first  gave  an  unfavourable  significance 
to  SeLaiSaLfiovla.  So  soon  as  they  began  to  account 
fear  a  disturbing  element  in  piety,  which  was  to  be 


XEW  testa:mext.  235 

eliminated  from  the  true  idea  of  it  (see  Plutarch, 
De  And.  Poet.  12  ;  and  Wjttenbach,  Animadd.  in 
Plut.  i.  997),  it  was  natural,  indeed  almost  inevita- 
ble, that  they  should  lay  hold  of  the  word  which 
by  its  very  etymology  implied  and  involved  fear 
{heiaihaifjLovla^  from  BelSco),  and  should  emj)lo3^  it  to 
denote  that  which  they  disallowed  and  condemned, 
namely,  the  '  timer  inanis  Deorum '  (Cicero,  J)e  Xat. 
Deor.  i.  41) ;  in  which  phrase  the  emphasis  must 
not  be  laid  on  '  inanis  '  but  on  '  timor ;'  cf.  Augus- 
tine, De  Civ.  Dei,  vi.  9  :  Yarro  religiosum  a  super- 
stitioso  ea  distinctione  discernit,  ut  a  superstitioso 
dicat  timeri  Deos ;  a  religioso  autem  vereri  ut  j)a- 
rentes  ;  non  ut  hostes  timeri. 

But  even  after  they  had  thus  turned  BeLaiSatfio- 
vCa  to  ignobler  uses,  to  the  being,  as  Theophrastus 
defines  it,  heCkla  irepl  to  SacfiovLov,  it  did  not  at  once 
and  altogether  forfeit  its  higher  significance.  In- 
deed it  remained  to  the  last  a  fieaov.  Thus  we  not 
only  find  BeiatSal/icov  (Xenophon,  Ages.  xi.  8 ;  Cyroj). 
iii.  3.  58),  and  hucriBaiiiovIa  (Polybius,  vi.  56.  7  ; 
Josephus,  Antt.  x.  3.  2),  in  a  good  sense ;  but  I  am 
persuaded  also  employed  in  no  ill  meaning  by  St. 
Paul  himself  in  his  great  discourse  upon  Mars'  Hill 
at  Athens.  He  there  addresses  the  Athenians,  "  I 
perceive  that  in  all  things  ye  are  w?  BetaiSaL/jLovea- 
T€pov<; "  (Acts  xvii.  22),  which  is  scarcely,  "  too  su- 
perstitious," as  we  have  rendered  it,  or  "  allzu  aber- 


236  SYNONYMS   OF  THE 

glaiibiscli,'  as  Lutlier ;  but  rather  ^  religiosiores,'  as 
Beza,  'sehr  gottesfurclitig,'  as  De  Wette,  have 
given  it.^  For  mcleed  it  was  not  St.  Paul's  manner 
to  affront  his  auditors,  least  of  all  at  the  outset  of  a 
discourse  ;  not  to  say  that  a  much  deeper  reason 
than  a  mere  calculating  prudence  would  have  hin- 
dered, him,  I  believe,  from  expressing  himself  thus, 
namely,  that  he  would  not,  any  more  than  his  great 
Master,  quench  the  smoking  flax,  or  deny  the  reli- 
gious element  which  was  in  heathenism.  Many  in- 
terpreters, ancient  as  well  as  modern,  agree  in  this 
view  of  the  intention  of  St.  Paul;  for  example, 
Chrysostom,  who  makes  SeiaiSacfiovearepov^  =  evXa- 
pearepov^,  and  takes  the  word  altogether  as  praise. 
Yet  neither  must  we  run  into  an  extreme  on  this 
side.  St.  Paul  selects  with' finest  tact  and,  skill, 
and  at  the  same  time  with  most  perfect  truth, 'a 
word  which  shaded  off  from  praise  to  blame ;  in 
which  he  gave  to  his  Athenian  hearers  the  honour 
which  was  confessedly  their  due  as  zealous  worship- 
pers of  the  superior  powers,  so  far  as  their  know- 
ledge reached,  being  evae^eardrov;  iravTwv  rcov 
'EXk7]v(ov,  as  Josephus  calls  them ;  but  at  the  same 
time  he  does  not  squander  on  them  the  w^ords.of 
very  highest  honour  of  all,  reserving  them  for  the 

^  Bengel  {in  loc):    dsiaidaifxwv,  verbum  per  se  fietrou,  ideoque 
arabiguitatem  liabet  clementem,  et  exordio  huic  aptissimam. 


NEW    TEST  ANIENT.  237 

true  worshippers  of  tlie  true  and  living  God.  And 
as  it  is  thus  in  the  one  passage  where  BetatBalfjiwv 
occurs,  so  also  in  the  one  where  heiathaLfiovla  is  to 
be  found  (Acts  xxv.  19).  Festus  may  speak  there 
with  a  certain  latent  slight  of  the  Seco-iSai/jLovia,  or 
overstrained  way  of  worshipping  God  ('Gottesve- 
rehrung'  De  Wette  translates  it),  which  he  con- 
ceived to  be  common  to  St.  Paul  and  his  Jewish 
accusers,  but  he  would  scarcely  have  called  it  a 
'  superstition '  in  Agrippa's  face,  for  it  was  the  same 
which  Agrippa  himself  also  held  (Acts  xxvi.  3.  27), 
whom  certainly  he  was  very  far  from  intending  to 
insult. 


§  xlix. — K\rj/jLa,  K\dSo<;. 

These  words  are  related  to  one  another  by  de- 
scent from  a  common  stock,  derived  as  they  both 
are  from  kXclco,  '  frango  ; '  the  fragile  character  of 
the  branch,  the  ease  with  which  it  may  be  broken 
off,  to  be  planted  or  grafted  anew,  constituting  the 
basis  and  leading  conception  in  both  words.  At 
the  same  time  there  is  a  distinction  between  them, 
this  namely,  that  KXijfia  (=  'palmes')  is  especially 
the  branch  of  the  vine  {a/nTreXov  KXri/j.a,  Plato,  jPoI. 
i.  353  a)  ;  while  kXciSo^  (=  '  ramus ')  is  the  branch, 
not  the  larger  arm.  of  any  tree  ;  and  this  distinction 


2d»  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

is  always  observed  in  the  l^ew  Testament,  where 
fc\rj/jLa  only  occurs  in  the  allegory  of  the  True  Yine 
(John  XV.  2,  4,  5,  6  ;  cf.  Xum.  xiii.  24 ;  Ps.  Ixxix. 
12 ;  Ezek.  xvii.  6) ;  while  we  have  mention  of  the 
kXciSoc  of  the  mustard-tree  (Matt.  xiii.  32),  of  the  fig- 
tree  (Matt.  xxiv.  32),  of  the  olive-tree  (Kom.  xi.  16), 
and  generally  of  any  trees  (Matt.  xxi.  8  ;  cf.  Ezek. 
xxxi.  7;  Jer.  xi.  16 ;  Dan.  It.  9). 


[I  have  put  together,  and  in  a  concluding  article  subjoined,  as 
there  are  readers  to  whom  they  may  be  welcome,  a  few  passages 
from  different  authors,  intended  to  have  illustrated  some  other 
synonyms  of  the  IS^ew  Testament,  besides  those  which,  after  all,  I 
have  found  room  to  introduce  into  this  voluaie.  I  have  also  added 
to  these  one  or  two  quotations,  which  would  have  found  their  fit- 
ter places  earlier  in  the  book.] 

a.  ')(^p7](rT6Tr)<;j  ayaOoiavvrj. —  Jerome  {Conim.  in 
Ep.  ad  Gal.  v.  22) :  Benirjniias  sive  suavitas,  quia 
apud  Grsecos  'x^prjaroTTj^  utrumque  sonat,  virtus  est 
lenis,  blanda,  tranquilla,  et  omnium  bonorum  apta 
consortio ;  invitans  ad  familiaritatem  sui,  dulcis  al- 
loquio,  moribus  temperata.  Non  multum  toyiitas 
[ajaOcccrvvrj]  a  benignitate  diversa  est ;  quia  et  ipsa 
ad  benefaciendum  videtur  exposita.     Sed  in  eo  dif- 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  239 

fert ;  quia  potest  bonitas  esse  tristior,  et  froiite  seve- 
ns moribus  irrugata  bene  quidem  facere  et  prtestare 
quod  poscitur ;  non  tamen  suavis  esse  consortio,  et 
sua  cunctos  invitare  dulcedine. 

/5.  eXTTt?,  iriari^. —  Augustine  {Encliirid.  8):  Est 
itaque  fides  et  m alarum  rerum  et  bonarum  :  quia 
et  bona  creduntur  et  mala ;  et  lioc  fide  bona,  non 
mala.  Est  etiam  fides  est  prgeteritarum  rerum,  et 
prsesentium,  et  futurarum.  Credimus  enim  Chris- 
tum mortuum;  quod  jam  j)r8eteriit;  credimus  sedere 
ad  dexteram  Patris ;  quod  nunc  est :  credimus  ven- 
tm-um  ad  judicandum ;  quod  futurum  est.  Item 
fides  et  suarum  rerum  est  et  alienarum.  Nam  et  se 
quisque  credit  aliquando  esse  coepisse,  nee  fuisse 
utique  sempiternum ;  et  alios,  atque  alia ;  nee  so- 
lum de  aliis  hominibus  multa,  qujB  ad  religionem 
pertinent,  verum  etiam  de  angelis  credimus.  Sjyes 
autem  non  nisi  bonarum  rerum  est,  nee  nisi  futura- 
rum, et  ad  eum  j)ertinentium  qui  earum  spem  ge- 
rere  perhibetur.  Quee  cum  ita  sint,  propter  has 
caussas  distinguenda  erit  fides  ab  spe,  sicut  vocabu- 
lo,  ita  et  rationabili  differentia.  Nam  quod  adtinet 
ad  non  videre  sive  quae  creduntur,  sive  qu£e  spe- 
rantur,  fidei  speique  commune  est. 

y.  aylaiia^  atpeac;. —  Augustine  {Oo7i.  Crescon, 
Don.  ii.  Y) :  Schisma  est  recens  congregationis  ex 


240  SYNONYMS    OF   THE 

aliqua  sententiarum  diversitate  dissensio ;  hmresis 
autem  scliisma  inveteratnm. 

h.  fiaKpoOu/jLLa,  irpaoTTj^. — Tlieopljjlact  {In  Gal. 
V.  22)  :  fiaKpoOvfiia  7rpa6T7]ro<i  iv  tovtw  Sok€l  irapa 
rfi  jpa<f)fj  8ca(f)6p6LV,  tm  top  fxev  ^aKpoOufJLOv  ttoXvv 
ovra  iv  cf)pov7]a€Cj  fiy  6^eci)<;  a\Xa  cr')(oK.fi  eTrniOevat 
r7]V  TrpoaTjKovaav  Slktjv  tS  irralovrL,  rov  he  irpaov 
a(f)L6vai  iravTciTTacnv.  , 

e.  \oLBop6co,  p\aa(f)rjiJbew. —  Calvin  {Comvi.  in  iV. 
T. ;  1  Cor.  iv.  12) :  J^otandum  est  discriinen  inter 
lisec  duo  participia,  XoiSopovfjLevoi,  koI  ^Xaa-(f>7}iuLovfjLe- 
voL.  Qnoniam  Xoihopla  est  asperior  dicacitas,  qw2d 
non  tantum  perstringit  hominem,  sed  acriter  etiam 
mordet,  famamqne  aperta  contumelia  sugillat,  non 
dubium  est  qnin  XoiSopelv  sit  maledicto  tanquam 
aculeo  vuLnerare  liominem ;  proinde  reddidi  male- 
dictis  lacessiti.  B\aa(f)7jfila  est  apertius  probrum, 
qiium  quispiam  graviter  et  atrociter  proscinditur. 

f-  '^vxi'Koi;,  aapKLKo^. —  Grotiiis  {Annott.  in  N. 
T. ;  1  Cot.  ii.  14) :  Non  idem  est  -v/ru^t/cs?  avQpw- 
iTo^  et  aapKLK6<;.  Wv^lko^;  est  qui  bumange  tantmn 
rationis  luce  ducitur,  crapKLKOf;  qui  corporis  afiecti- 
bus  gubernatur ;  sed  plerunque  'yjrvxifcoL  aliqua  in 
parte  sunt  o-ap/ccKol,  ut  Gr^ecorum  25biloso2)bi  scorta- 
tores,  puerorum  corruptores,  glorise  aucupes,  male- 


NEW   TESTAMENT.  24:1 

dici,  invidi.  Yernm  liic  (1  Cor.  ii.  14)  nihil  aliud 
designatur  qiiam  liomo  liuniana  tantum  ratioue  ni- 
tens,  quales  erant  Judseorum  plerique  et  pliilosophi 
Grsscorum. 

rj.  fjLeravoico,  /xeTa/ieXo/jLat. — ^engel  (^G7i07no7i  JV. 
T.  j  2  Cor.  vii.  10) :  Yi  etjmi  f^erdvoca  proprie  est 
mentis,  fjuerafieXeia  voluntatis ;  qnod  ilia  sententiam, 
lisec  solicitudinem  vel  potins  studium  mutatnm  di- 
cat.  .  .  .  Utrumqne  ergo  dicitur  de  eo,  quern  facti 
consiliive  poenitet,  sive  poenitentia  bona  sit  sive 
mala,  sive  malse  rei  sive  bonce,  sive  cum  mutatione 
actionum  in  posterum,  sive  citra  earn.  Yerunta- 
men  si  usum  spectes,  /nera/ieXeta  plerunque  est  /jl6(7gv 
vocabulum,  et  refertur  potissimum  ad  actiones  sin- 
gulares :  fierdvoia  vero,  in  !N.  T.  prsesertim,  in  bo- 
nani  partem  sumitur,  quo  notatur  poenitentia  totius 
vitse  ipsorumque  nostri  quodammodo :  sive  tota  ilia 
beata  mentis  post  errorem  et  peccata  reminiscentia, 
cum  omnibus  affectibus  eam  ingredientibus,  quam 
fructus  digni  sequuntur.  Hinc  fit  ut  /jberavoetv  sagpe 
in  imperativo  ponatur,  fiera/jieXetaOaL  nunquam : 
ceteris  autem  locis,  ubicunque  fxerdvoLa  legitur, 
fiera/ieXeLav  possis  substituere  ;  sed  non  contra. 

6.  alcoVj  Koa-fio^. —  Bengel  {Ih.  Epli.  ii.  2):   al(£>v 
et  Koaiio<^  differunt,   1  Cor.  ii.  6,  12 ;  iii.  18.      Ille 
liunc  regit,  et  quasi  informat :  Koap.o^  est  quiddam 
11 


24:2  SYNONYMS    OF    THE 

exterius  ;  alcov  subtiliiis.  And  again  (Epli.  vi.  12) : 
Koafio^  mundus,  in  sna  extensione :  alwv  secnlum, 
prsesens  mundus  in  sua  indole,  cursu  et  censu. 

L,  iTpav^,  rjcrvxco^- — Bengel  {Ih.  1  Pet.  iii.  4): 
Mansuetus  \TTpav<;'\j  qui  non  turbat :  tranquillus 
\j]crvyio^^  qui  turbas  aliorum,  superiorum,  inferi- 
orum,  iequalium,  fert  placide  .  .  .  Adde,  mansuetus 
in  affectibus  :  tranquillus  in  verbis,  vultu,  actu. 

K.  Qv7]t6^^  veKpo^. —  Olsliausen  {Opusc.  Theoll.  p. 
195):  NeKpo<;  vocatur  subjectum,  in  quo  sejunctio 
corporis  et  animse  facta  est :  6v7]to<;,  in  quo  fieri 
potest. 

\.  /c6ha(Ti9,  TL/jLopia  (see  p.  4T). —  Aulus  Gellius, 
vi.  14  :  Puniendis  peccatis  tres  esse  debere  causas 
existimatum  est.  Una  est  quae  vovOeaia,  vel  KoXa- 
aL<;,  vel  irapalvecn^  dicitur ;  cum  poena  adhibetur 
castigandi  atque  emendandi  gratia ;  ut  is  qui  for- 
tuito  deliquit,  attentior  fiat,  correctiorque.  Altera 
est  quam  ii,  qui  vocabula  ista  curiosius  diviserunt, 
rcfJLcopLav  appellant.  Ea  causa  animadvertendi  est, 
cum  dignitas  auctoritasque  ejus,  in  quem  est  pec- 
catum,  tuenda  est,  ne  prsetermissa  animadversio 
contemtum  ejus  pariat,  et  bonorem  levet:  idcirco- 
que  id  ei  vocabulum  a  conservatione  lionoris  fac- 
tum putant. 


NEW    TESTAMENT.  243 

fi.  a<^ecrt?,  Trdpeai^;  (see  J).  163). — Fritzsche  {Ad 
Horn.  vol.  i.  p.  199) :  Conveniunt  in  hoc  [ac^eo-t? 
et  Trdpeai^l  quodsive  ilia,  sive  liaec  tibi  obtigerit, 
nulla  peccatorum  tuorum  ratio  habetiir ;  discre- 
pant eo,  quod,  liac  data,  facinorum  tuorum  poenas 
nunquam  pendes ;  ilia  concessa,  non  diutius  nullas 
peccatorum  tuorum  poenas  lues,  quam  ei  in  iis  con- 
nivere  placuerit,  cui  in  delicta  tua  animadvertendi 
jus  sit. 


INDEX. 

PAGE 

ayada^a-vurj 

.    238 

fiios    . 

ayairdw  . 

65 

fiXa(T(p7iueci} 

alB^s 

.       98,  102 

fioCKW 

aipearis    . 

239 

altrxpoKoyia 

.     164 

SeiXia     . 

alax^VT] 

98 

SeKTidaluwv 

alreci) 

.     194 

SeO-TTOTTJS 

alria 

31 

SidBrjixa 

oLuav   . 

.     241 

SidKOVOS 

a\aCa>v  . 

137 

5ov\os 

a\ei(pa) 

.     182 

aX-ndrjs   . 

48 

'Efipa7os 

aKriQivos      . 

.      48 

cIkuv  . 

audOefia 

35 

iKKXT]cria 

avddrjfxa 

.      35 

tkaiov 

auaKaivcca-LS     . 

92 

e\eyxos 

apdiravcris    . 

.     198 

i\4yxc} 

&ue(ris     . 

198 

fcAeos       . 

avTLXpio'Tos 

.     145 

kXKVOO 

aiTTo/xai 

89 

i\iris       . 

a(r4\yeia     . 

.       83 

iiridKeia      . 

dtrcoTia    . 

83 

iTnTifida} 

ava-T-qpos     . 

.      74 

ipWTaca 

drpicris    . 

157,  243 

evXd^eia 

PAGE 

128 
240 
120 

58 

227 

134 

112 

58 

53 

185 

77 

17 

182 

31 

31 

225 

105 

239 

207 

31 

194 

58 


^ 


246 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

PAGE 

eiiKafi-fiS 

.     227 

/LiaKpodv/xia 

.     240 

fva-efi-fjs 

227 

IJ.avTeuoiJ.ai 

40 

ei/TpaireXia 

.     164 

IJ.eTafxeXofJ.ai 

.     241 

fieTauoeot 

241 

CvKos      . 

124 

fiiaivo} 

.     151 

Cu)7i    . 

.     128 

fioXvvo}  . 

151 

fjLvpou 

.     182 

■)](TVXlOi  . 

242 

fJccpoXoyia 

164 

OdXaffcra 

.      72 

vaos   . 

.       28 

6ei6rT]s   . 

24 

veKpos     . 

242 

Oeoae^ri^     . 

.    227 

J/lTTTftJ 

.     215 

OeSrris    . 

24 

vovOeala 

152 

GepaTTcau 

.       53 

Biyyduoi) 

89 

oXoKXripos  . 

.    108 

OUTJTOS 

.    242 

SfioioDfia .          . 

77 

6prj(TKOs  . 

227 

dfioiuais     . 

.      77 

dvfios 

.    178 

opy-h        . 

178 

Upou  . 

.       28 

TraiSeia  . 

152 

lovBa7os 

185 

iraXiyyeveaia 

.       92 

'lapar]\LT7)s 

.     185 

Trau-nyvpis 

17 

irdpeais 

.      157,  243 

kukIu 

60 

Trapopyia-fiSs    . 

178 

KUKO^Oeia    . 

.       60 

ireXayos 

.      72 

kXclSos    . 

237 

Tvevris 

175 

KA-eTTTTyS        . 

.     211 

TTtO-TiS 

.    239 

K\rina     . 

237 

irXeove^ia 

117 

KSXaffis 

46,  242 

irXvpa 

.     215 

KOfffJLOS     . 

241 

TTOlfialvM 

120 

KVpiOS 

.     134 

TTovripia 

.       00 

TrpacJxTj? 

201,  207,  240 

XafiTrds  . 

219 

Trpai/s 

.     242 

XaTpevw 

.    171 

irpo^7]T€vco 

40 

\€iTovpye(a 

171 

TTTUXOS 

.     175 

Xri(TTT]S 

.     211 

XoiSop4w 

240 

(XapKlKOS 

240 

Xovoi}  . 

.     215 

(TKXrjpoi 

.      74 

Xvxvos    . 

219 

(TTecpavos 

112 

IXDEX. 

PAGE 

avvaycayy]   . 

.           11 

(pdovos 

(Tvpu 

105 

(piXapyvpla 

(rxi<r/xa 

.    239 

(piXew 

(Toxppocrvvr] 

102 

<p60os      . 
(pws    . 

Tair^ivo(ppo<Tvvt]   . 

.     201 

(pci}(TTr)p  . 

TfXdOS    . 

108 

Tiaup'ia 

46,  242 

Xdpis      . 

XpT/O-T^TTjy  . 

V^pl(TT-f}S 

137 

XpLO} 

vTr€p-f]<pavos 

.     137 

UTTTjpeTTJS 

53 

\pevd6xpi(TTos 
xpriXaixici} 

(p^yyos 

.     219 

XpVXlKOS 

247 

PAGE 

124 
117 
65 
58 
219 
219 

225 
238 
182 

145 

89 

240 


INDEX   OF   OTHEE   WOEDS. 


Abbild       . 
Admonitio 
^mulor     . 
ayairi]     . 
aKoKaffTOS  • 
Altare   . 
a/JLiWa 
Amo 

hvayevurjffis 
Aiidacht 

'AVTIKIXTWV 

Antipater 

avTiOeos 

Ara 

aperr) 

Aiisterus 

Avarice 

Beflecken 
Bcnignitas 
j8c'i/0oj    . 
Beriihren  . 
Besudeln 
Betasten    . 
Biography 
Bonitas 

Pw/JLOS        . 

Bosewiclit 


PAGE 

78 

Call  . 

154 

Calo       . 

125 

Candela     . 

70 

Caritas 

153 

Castigatio 

42 

Cautio  . 

126 

dementia  . 

65 

Congregatio  . 

92 

Convict      . 

228 

Convince 

146 

Convocatio 

147 

Corona  . 

148 

Correptio  . 

42 

Covetousness 

41 

Cultus 

76 

117 

Defile     . 

Defoul 

151 

Deitas    . 

238 

Despot       . 

74 

Diadema 

90 

Dileetio 

151 

Diligo    . 

90 

Divinatio  . 

130 

Divinitas 

239 

Donarium 

42 

Drag 

61 

Draw 

PAGE 
20 

20 

223 

71 

46 

60 

208 

22 

34 

33 

22 

113 

156 

117 

231 

151 

151 

27 

136 

113 

71 

65 

43 

27 

36 

105 

105 


INDEX. 


24:9 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Egestas      . 

.    177 

Losel 

.       84 

Eifersucht      . 

125 

Liiderlieh 

86 

Equity 

.     209 

Luxuria,  luxuriosus  . 

.       84 

"Epos     . 

71 

Eruditio     . 

154,  156 

Macula  . 

152 

evdaiixovia 

41 

Malitia       . 

.       61 

Exacerbatio 

.     181 

Manier  . 

90 

Excandescentia 

179 

Mausuetus 

.     242 

fxaVTlKT)  . 

43 

Fair  . 

.       23 

fidvTis 

.      42 

Fascia    . 

113 

Mendicus 

176 

Feria 

.       23 

Mereatus   . 

.      23 

Fur 

211 

Metus    . 

59 

Furor 

.    179 

Moderatio  . 

.     103 

Modestia 

103,  208 

Gasconade      . 

139 

Geiz  . 

.    117 

ISTacheiferung 

125 

Gloriosus 

140 

Nachschleppen  . 

.     108 

Glorious    . 

.     140 

vefjLea-au},  vefiecns 

127 

Grecian 

193 

Ostentation 

.     139 

Ilabsucht  . 

.     117 

'EA\7]viaT7)s    . 

187 

Palmes  , 

237 

'O\0T€\r]s  . 

.     112 

Panegyric  . 

.      23 

nilten    . 

121 

Pasco     . 

122 

Pauper,  paupertas     . 

.     176 

Imago 

.      78 

Pelagus 

72 

Indigentia 

119 

YlevecTTai     . 

.    176 

Indignatio 

.     179 

Penuria 

176 

luquino 

151 

Perditus     , 

.      84 

Integer,  integritas 

.     109 

Trep-JTcpos 

140 

Interpi'etor    . 

63 

Peto  .         .         .         . 

.     195 

Petulantia 

87 

KaAew 

.       20 

Pietas 

.     228 

Klept     . 

214 

ttoVtos     . 

74 

Preetermission    . 

.     159 

Lubes 

.     152 

Prahlerei 

139 

Latro     .         . 

211 

Prodigus    . 

.       84 

Life  . 

.     128 

TrpotraiTTj? 

177 

11* 


250 


INDEX. 


PAGE 

PAGE 

Protervitas 

87 

Thief 

.    212 

Pudor    .... 

99 

Qvcnacrrrjpiov  . 

41 

Timor 

.      68 

Regeneratio 

98 

Toucher 

90 

Religio  .... 

230 

Traho 

.     105 

Religion,  religious      . 

232 

Trnnquillus   . 

242 

Religiosiis 

231 

Turpiloquium    . 

.     166 

Renovatio 

98 

Reprove 

33 

Ultio      . 

46 

Robber      .         .         .         . 

211 

Uppishness 

.     142 

Rogo      .... 

196 

Urbanitas 

168 

Scatterling 

84 

Verax 

.      48 

Scurrilitas     . 

168 

Verecundia    . 

100 

Shamefast,  sbamefastness  . 

104 

Verus 

.      48 

Similitudo      . 

79 

Vita      . 

128 

Simultas    .         .         .         . 

126 

Vitiositas  . 

.       61 

Spurco  .... 

151 

Vorbild 

78 

Stain          .         .         .         . 

152 

Stilts      .... 

141 

Wahrsagen 

.      42 

Stolz           .         .         .         . 

141 

Wantonness  . 

88 

Stout     .... 

141 

Weiden     . 

.    121 

Stultiloquy 

165 

Weissagen     . 

42 

Superbia 

141 

Widerchrist 

.     148 

Superstitio,  snperstitiosiis 

234 

Woi'ship 

227 

Tsenia        .         .         .         . 

113 

Ziehen 

.    108 

Temperantia 

103 

Zoology 

130 

Oeoyevea-ia  .          .         .         . 

97 

Zorn  . 

.     179 

^V^-T^^ 


Date  Due 

^       _ 

isiE^ 

-MftM-W 

A- 

^A6UW 

IL. 

nArr-rtirnrlrM 

Ike-' 

fr\/l     1    ■     « 

T^ 

- -*  ^iBMBlWi^^ 

^^"''^fllWPi^* 

r 

i*A*i  ^ija 

(«f 

(i 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

